Thomas Ahrens v. State , 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 10147 ( 2011 )

OPINION
No. 04-11-00079-CR
Thomas AHRENS,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2008CR4260A
Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 28, 2011
AFFIRMED
Thomas Ahrens was convicted of murder and sentenced to forty-five years in prison.
Ahrens appeals, contending there is insufficient evidence to corroborate the testimony of an
accomplice and the evidence is legally insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. We affirm the
judgment.
04-11-00079-CR
BACKGROUND
Christopher Duncan, the victim, shared an apartment on the southeast side of San
Antonio with Jason Woodward. Woodward testified that Duncan left their apartment at 11:30
p.m. on February 4, 2008, to buy beer. Woodward testified he called Duncan at 12:15 a.m.
because he was concerned about Duncan’s whereabouts. Duncan told Woodward that he had
met some people and he was going to have drinks with them. At 12:45, Duncan called
Woodward and said he was okay. Woodward became worried and called Duncan again at 12:57
a.m. Woodward testified that Duncan sounded anxious and said he would be home soon.
Woodward never heard from Duncan again.
Woodward called Duncan’s cell phone the next morning, but no one answered.
Woodward later received a call from his bank and was informed that suspicious purchases were
being made with the debit card for Woodward and Duncan’s joint account. Woodward went to
an online banking website and discovered the card had been used at several stores after Duncan’s
disappearance, including a Target. He went to Target with Duncan’s mother and other relatives
and viewed the store’s surveillance video. Woodward testified that from viewing the tape he
determined that the card was being used by an unknown man and woman. Using a photo
obtained from Target, Woodward and the family members went to various homeless camps and
businesses seeking information about the man and woman in the photograph. On February 8,
2008, an employee of a local store told Woodward that the woman in the photograph had been
seen in a wooded area behind the shopping center. Woodward and others began searching the
wooded area. They found Duncan’s body covered by a tarp in a clearing in the woods that
appeared to be a campsite used by homeless people. Woodward also told the jury Duncan had
been homeless at one time and had a soft spot in his heart for homeless people. Woodward
-2-
04-11-00079-CR
recalled that Duncan would often buy food or cigarettes for homeless people if he encountered
them outside a store.
A subsequent police investigation revealed that one of the purchases made with Duncan’s
debit card the evening of February 5, 2008, was at a Wal-Mart located near the murder scene.
The surveillance video of the transaction was admitted into evidence. Witnesses testified the
video depicted Ahrens and his female companion walking through the store and eventually
leaving with various items purchased with Duncan’s debit card. A receipt of the transaction,
showing it occurred at 10:05 p.m., was also admitted.
Julia Valverde testified she worked at the same Wal-Mart in the sporting goods
department. During the afternoon of February 4, 2008, she waited on a couple that purchased
beer, a machete, a can of water repellent, and some sealer. She testified that the couple told her
they were homeless and asked her if there was a secluded area near the store. A copy of the sales
receipt introduced into evidence showed the UPC codes for each item. Valverde identified
Ahrens as the male to whom she sold the machete. Because beer was being purchased, she
requested identification. Valverde stated that she is required to enter the birthdate into the
register in order to complete the sale of beer. The receipt contains the birthdate from the
identification card — December 19, 1974. San Antonio Police Detective John Marfin testified
that Ahrens’s date of birth is December 19, 1974. Ruben Naranjo, also a Wal-Mart employee,
testified he used the UPC code to determine the machete sold to Ahrens was the only machete
sold in that store the month preceding Duncan’s murder.
Saul Gonzales, a waiter at a Chili’s restaurant located near the murder scene, testified he
was working on February 5, 2008, and that he waited on a homeless couple that evening. He
indicated it was unusual to have homeless people eat at the restaurant. He testified the couple
-3-
04-11-00079-CR
seemed very happy and both ordered steaks and a steak to-go. They also ordered margaritas with
extra shots of liquor. Gonzales testified the couple paid with a credit card; however, other
evidence established the card was actually Duncan’s debit card. A copy of the receipt was
introduced into evidence and reflects the time of the transaction as 9:28 p.m. Gonzales identified
Ahrens from a photo array as the male he served that night.
David Rivera testified he was the loss prevention manager at a Target store located near
the murder scene. At the request of the police, Rivera obtained surveillance tapes and a receipt
relating to a sales transaction that took place at 7:52 p.m. on February 5, 2008. The video was
played for the jury and depicts a male and female couple purchasing some clothing and other
items. Rivera testified that the clothing purchased in the video appeared to be the clothing worn
by the female in the surveillance photo taken at the Wal-Mart later that evening. The receipt
reflects Duncan’s debit card was used to make the purchases.
San Antonio Police Department Detective Tim Angel testified that during the murder
investigation he learned fraudulent purchases were made with Duncan’s debit card on February
5, 2008. He reviewed the surveillance videos from Wal-Mart and noticed the same couple
bought several items using Duncan’s debit card. In the video depicting the sale of the machete,
he also saw the couple walk out of the store and down the footpath leading to the location where
the body was found. He told the jury he was able to obtain a good picture of the couple from the
videos, and he obtained a “John Doe” warrant charging each person with murder. Detective
Angel testified that the investigation ultimately led him to interview Robert White, who was
being held by authorities in Corpus Christi. White identified the couple as Ahrens and his
girlfriend Kristi Tebo. Based on his statements to Detective Angel, White was charged with the
murder of Duncan.
-4-
04-11-00079-CR
White testified at Ahrens’s trial. White told the jury he met Ahrens and Tebo when the
couple walked up to him while he was drinking beer near the intersection of Goliad Road and
S.E. Military Drive in southeast San Antonio. White was homeless and living with his brother
who was camped in some woods nearby. The couple asked if they could “chill” and drink beer
with him. They later met Duncan and all decided to visit Ahrens’s campsite. The group
continued to drink at Ahrens’s campsite and White became quite intoxicated. At some point,
Duncan struck White in the nose. White was unable to explain why Duncan struck him other
than to say that he might have said “something” to Duncan. White stated he then began to fight
Duncan, and Duncan fell on Ahrens’s tent where Tebo was sleeping. White hit and kicked
Duncan several times while he was on the ground. White testified that when Duncan said he
“was finished,” White halted his attack. White testified that after he stopped kicking Duncan,
Ahrens began to kick Duncan as Duncan lay on the collapsed tent. Tebo opened the tent and
Ahrens told her to “throw” him the machete. White estimated that Ahrens struck Duncan twenty
to thirty times with the machete and the attack lasted one to two minutes. After he stopped, Tebo
used the machete to strike Duncan once, and stated “Well, are you going to hurry up and fucking
die?” White testified he walked away from the campsite alone, but Ahrens and Tebo later caught
up with him and they drank some more beer. The group left San Antonio a few days later and
travelled to Corpus Christi. White admitted he pled guilty to the murder of Duncan but that he
had not yet been sentenced. He explained that he would receive a sentence of not more than
twenty-five years in prison in exchange for his testimony.
Dr. Randall Frost, the Bexar County Medical Examiner, testified about the results of the
autopsy he conducted on Duncan. Dr. Frost noted numerous cuts on Duncan’s body and stated
they were caused by a heavy, sharp, bladed instrument similar to a machete. There was a single
-5-
04-11-00079-CR
wound to the neck that cut the trachea and the left vertebral artery and which would have been
fatal by itself. However, it was Dr. Frost’s opinion that the cause of death was “multiple incised
chop and blunt force injuries, as well as stab wounds.” He also testified that all of the wounds
could have been made by the same weapon.
Catherine Haskins-Miller, a forensic scientist employed by the Bexar County Crime
Laboratory, testified she examined evidence collected from the crime scene as well as DNA
samples obtained from White, Tebo, Duncan, and Ahrens. She testified that Ahrens was not
excluded as the DNA donor on at least two beer cans retrieved from the crime scene and the
probability of another person having the same DNA profile as Ahrens was one in eighty-nine
trillion. She also found DNA profiles of Tebo on various pieces of evidence from the crime
scene.
The jury was instructed that it could find Ahrens guilty either as a principal or as a party
acting in concert with White “and/or” Tebo. The charge also included an accomplice witness
instruction as to White’s testimony. The jury returned a guilty verdict.
ACCOMPLICE TESTIMONY
Ahrens contends there is insufficient evidence to support White’s accomplice testimony.
An accomplice witness is a person who could be prosecuted for the same offense as the
defendant or a lesser-included offense. Blake v. State, 971 S.W.2d 451, 454-55 (Tex. Crim. App.
1998). A person may not be convicted based on testimony of an accomplice unless there is other
evidence, independent of the accomplice witness, that tends to connect the defendant to the
crime. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.14 (West Supp. 2010); Hernandez v. State, 939
S.W.2d 173, 176 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the
commission of the offense. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.14 (West 2010). “The
-6-
04-11-00079-CR
corroborative evidence, however, need not be sufficient in itself to establish guilt, nor must it
directly link the accused to the commission of the offense.” Brown v. State, 270 S.W.3d 564,
567 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2075 (2009). Rather, the independent
‘“evidence must simply link the accused in some way to the commission of the crime and show
that rational jurors could conclude that this evidence sufficiently tended to connect [the accused]
to the offense.’” Simmons v. State, 282 S.W.3d 504, 508 (Tex. Crim. App.2009) (quoting
Malone v. State, 253 S.W.3d 253, 257 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)). The independent evidence
tending to link the defendant to the crime is viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s
verdict. Brown, 270 S.W.3d at 567.
The parties agree White was an accomplice; therefore, we must disregard his testimony
and determine if there is sufficient evidence connecting Ahrens to the crime. Ahrens argues he
was not sufficiently linked to the crime by the evidence. We disagree.
DNA evidence places Ahrens and Tebo at the crime scene. Although Ahrens correctly
points out the forensic expert could not determine when the DNA was deposited, Ahrens
overlooks the testimony from Valverde, the Wal-Mart clerk who sold the machete and beer to
Ahrens the day before the murder. Valverde testified Ahrens and Tebo asked her if there was a
secluded area near the store, suggesting they were looking for a place to camp. A rational jury
could infer from this testimony that Ahrens had not yet established his camp in the woods, and
the DNA was deposited during or near the time of the murder. Proof that a defendant was at the
crime scene near the time of the crime may, when coupled with other suspicious circumstances,
tend to connect the accused to the crime. See Brown v. State, 672 S.W.2d 487, 489 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1984). Investigators found packaging material that came from a machete at the crime
scene. Using the UPC code on the packaging, investigators purchased another machete from
-7-
04-11-00079-CR
Wal-Mart that matched the packaging. Dr. Frost testified the wounds inflicted upon Duncan
could have been made by the demonstrative machete. Naranjo testified he searched the records
at Wal-Mart for one month before the murder date and found no record of another machete being
sold. Ahrens was identified using Duncan’s debit card the evening of February 5, 2008.
Woodward testified he last spoke to Duncan at 12:57 a.m. that day, and received no answer when
he called later in the morning. From this evidence a reasonable jury could have inferred that the
murder took place sometime during the morning hours on February 5, 2008, and Ahrens’s
possession of Duncan’s debit card later that evening was some evidence that tended to connect
him to the murder. See Herron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621, 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)
(defendant’s possession of stolen property properly considered as evidence tending to connect
him to crime); Gill v. State, 873 S.W.2d 45, 48 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (holding that possession
of property taken in crime was some evidence that tended to connect defendant to crime). A
rational jury could conclude that the evidence, independent of the accomplice’s testimony,
sufficiently tended to connect Ahrens to the murder.
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
Ahrens also contends the evidence is legally insufficient to support the jury’s verdict.
His argument focuses mainly on his contention that White’s testimony was incredible and
contradictory, and no rational jury could have believed it.
In a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we review all the evidence in the light
most favorable to the jury’s verdict to determine whether any rational jury could have found the
essential elements of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Brooks v. State, 323
S.W.3d 893, 899, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). We defer to the jury’s credibility and weight
determinations because the jury is the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and the weight to
-8-
04-11-00079-CR
be given their testimony. Id. at 899. “Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence
in establishing the guilt of an actor, and circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to
establish guilt.” Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The standard of
review is the same for cases relying on either direct or circumstantial evidence. Id. “Each fact
need not point directly and independently to the guilt of the appellant, as long as the cumulative
force of the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support the conviction.” Id. Because
Ahrens was charged as both a principal and a party to the offense, we will review the evidence to
determine whether it is legally sufficient under either theory. Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45,
49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (“[W]hen the trial court’s charge authorizes the jury to convict on
more than one theory, as it did in this case, the verdict of guilty will be upheld if the evidence is
sufficient on any one of the theories.”). A person is guilty as a party to an offense if, acting with
the intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids
or attempts to aid another to commit the offense. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 7.02(a)(2) (West
2011); Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13.
The evidence is clearly sufficient to support the jury’s verdict that Ahrens caused
Duncan’s death. The determination of White’s credibility was for the jury’s sole determination,
and by its verdict, the jury apparently found White’s testimony credible despite any
contradictions. Although White provides the only direct evidence that Ahrens struck Duncan
with the machete, this evidence, coupled with the circumstantial evidence, including Ahrens’s
purchase of the machete just before the killing and his possession of the victim’s debit card
shortly after the killing, would permit a rational jury to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that
Ahrens was responsible for the crime. Although the medical examiner testified that only one
wound was definitely fatal, he stated that Duncan’s death resulted from multiple “incised chop
-9-
04-11-00079-CR
and blunt force injuries.” The evidence was sufficient to enable a rational jury determine that
Ahrens was guilty as a principal.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
PUBLISH
- 10 -