Zeeshan Maqbool v. the State of Texas

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-19-00386-CR
NO. 09-19-00387-CR
__________________
ZEESHAN MAQBOOL, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 258th District Court
San Jacinto County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. CR12,525, CR12,526
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This appeal arises from a consolidated punishment hearing that occurred after
Zeeshan Maqbool pleaded guilty to the allegations in two indictments, one charging
him with the murder of Christopher Lee Miles, the other with committing an
aggravated assault against Mary, a person who was at that time his wife. In the
punishment hearing, Maqbool presented evidence and argued he was overcome by
sudden passion when he murdered Miles. The sudden-passion defense lowers the
punishment available for the murder if successful and the defendant is convicted
1
from a first-degree felony to a felony of the second degree. 1 Maqbool elected to have
the trial court decide his punishment. In the end, the trial court assessed thirty-year
sentences in each of the cases. It also explained why the court rejected Maqbool’s
claim of sudden passion when the hearing ended.
Maqbool appealed. In one of his issues, he complains about the trial court’s
failure to find in his favor on his sudden passion defense. In his other issue, which
applies to both of his convictions, he complains the trial court erred by admitting
five photographs of Mary that show her in a hospital bed following the assault.
Generally speaking, the photos show the nature and extent of the injuries Mary
suffered when Maqbool struck her with a bat.
We conclude Maqbool’s issues lack merit, so we will affirm.
Background
In April 2018, Maqbool assaulted his wife, Mary, after finding Mary and her
boyfriend together in bed. Maqbool and Mary had separated a few days before the
incident occurred. Mary insisted that Maqbool leave the home after they argued
about the fact she was spending time and sending messages to Miles on her phone.
The night that Miles died, Maqbool returned to Mary’s home after he learned that
Mary and Miles had gone out with each other that evening. Upon entering Mary’s
bedroom, he found Miles in bed with Mary. An altercation occurred and Maqbool
1Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(d) (Sudden Passion Defense).
2
killed Miles by stabbing him with a knife and then striking him with a baseball bat.2
After finishing with Miles, Maqbool struck Mary in the head with a baseball bat.
Believing that he had killed Mary and Miles, Maqbool left and called the police to
report what he had done.
Just over a month later, a San Jacinto County Grand Jury indicted Maqbool
for committing an aggravated assault (with a deadly weapon) against Mary and for
murdering Miles. In return for a plea agreement to cap his sentence in the cases to
forty-year sentences, Maqbool pleaded guilty. As charged in the indictments, the
crimes alleged in the indictments are both first-degree felonies, which are punishable
with a sentence of not less than five or more than 99 years (or life). 3 After Maqbool
pleaded guilty, he told the trial court he wanted to reserve his “right to argue sudden
passion in the murder case” at punishment. The prosecutor stated the State did not
object to going forward with that understanding. The trial court acknowledged the
agreement and said the cases would proceed to punishment on that basis.
The trial court conducted the consolidated punishment hearing in Maqbool’s
cases two months after accepting Maqbool’s plea. During the hearing, Maqbool
2Id. § 19.02(b)(1). While Miles is the victim named in the indictment for
murder, the Court of Criminal Appeals does not typically use initials or another alias
to avoid identifying the name of someone who was killed. See, e.g., Macedo v. State,
620 S.W.3d 237, 238 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). For that reason, we do not disguise
Miles’s name.
3Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.32, 19.02(c), 22.02(b)(1).
3
objected when the prosecutor offered five photographs into evidence showing Mary
in a hospital bed and the injuries she suffered during the assault. Maqbool asked the
trial court to exclude the photos from evidence, arguing they were more prejudicial
than probative to the issues involved in his punishment hearing given the “graphic
nature” of the injuries in the photos. The trial court overruled the objection.
The remaining discussion about the background information relevant to
Maqbool’s issues focuses on the evidence related to Maqbool’s sudden passion
defense. The State’s case-in-chief was presented through nine witnesses, four of
them police officers involved in the investigation of Mileses’ death. Mary did not
testify in the hearing. The evidence before the trial court includes many exhibits,
including a videorecording that police obtained from Maqbool when he gave police
a statement explaining what happened at Mary’s house the night Mileses’ death
occurred. Maqbool’s recorded interview with the police is approximately six-hours
long. The interview occurred the same day the crimes occurred. Generally, the
videorecording shows Maqbool and Mary separated a few days before Maqbool
discovered Mary and Miles together in bed. The recording shows that Maqbool knew
Mary wanted a divorce and that Mary and Miles had gone out together drinking
before he decided to go to Mary’s house.
Detective Gary Sharpen, an employee of the San Jacinto County Sheriff’s
Office, conducted the recorded interview Maqbool gave the police. During the
4
interview, Maqbool told the detective that he and Mary married in October 2016, but
then separated in late January 2017 shortly after Maqbool learned that Mary was
cheating on their marriage.
During the interview, Maqbool told the detective he moved back in with Mary
in February 2017 to help her recuperate after Mary was released from a hospital,
where she was treated for ongoing problems she had with her heart. After they
moved back in together, their arguments about their relationship persisted. In large
part, according to Maqbool, the arguments concerned Mary’s decisions that led her
to cheat on the marriage. For example, Maqbool told the detective he came home
one day and saw Mary and a man named Eric having sex on the couch. According
to Maqbool, he left without saying anything. Later that day, Mary called Maqbool
and told him that Eric was “just a friend[.]” Even so, several days later, Maqbool
found two voicemail messages that Mary sent to Eric on her phone. One of the
messages described a sexual act. The other, according to Maqbool, mentions that
Mary told Eric she was developing feelings for him. Maqbool told the detective that
upon discovering the voicemails, he felt angry and betrayed.
The indictments allege the assault and murder occurred on Thursday, April
12, 2018. Maqbool told the detective that before April 12, Mary learned that
Maqbool was monitoring the messenger service she was using to send messages to
others from her phone. Mary reacted angrily when she found out that Maqbool was
5
monitoring her messages. Maqbool also told the detective he was tracking Mary’s
location from his phone by using a location service that he had enabled on Mary’s
phone. Maqbool told the detective that by using the location service, and while out
of town on business, he learned several days before he killed Miles that Mary was
at Mileses’ home. Maqbool drove home and went to Mileses’ house. He found Mary
and Miles together there after midnight. After he woke everyone up, Maqbool told
Mary to come home. Mary did so. However, the couple continued arguing about
Mary’s relationship with Miles and the fact that Maqbool was monitoring where she
was and whom she was sending messages to through the internet. Ultimately, Mary
demanded Maqbool leave, and threated him with a divorce. Mary told Maqbool she
would call the police if he refused to leave.
On April 10, 2018, Maqbool left the house. The next day, Wednesday April
11, Mary sent Maqbool a text message accompanied by a photograph of her with
Miles. The image, according to Maqbool, shows Mary and Miles together in
Mileses’ bedroom. Maqbool explained that he knew the photo Mary sent him was
taken on April 10, the day that he found Mary with Miles at Mileses’ home by the
clothing Mary was wearing in the photo.
After separating on April 11, Maqbool and Mary continued exchanging text
messages. Mary told Maqbool that she no longer wanted to be with him and wanted
a divorce. Maqbool told the detective he responded (by text) to Mary and told her
6
she could not divorce him; he’d treated her like a queen. Maqbool explained that
around 7:30 or so on the evening of April 11th, he knew their relationship was over.
He acknowledged that at that point, he was upset. That night, Mary sent Maqbool a
text message stating she was with her new boyfriend and his friends having fun. He
said he knew when Mary made statements like that, she was “drinking and [] fooling
around[.]” Maqbool stated the text messages made him “very angry[,]” but he tried
to go to sleep.
Around 11:00 p.m. that evening, Maqbool decided to go to Mary’s and talk
with her to “settle things before something really [did] happen to our relationship.”
Maqbool did so, he said, because he felt guilty for surreptitiously monitoring Mary’s
phone. According to Maqbool, he wanted to apologize to Mary because he believed
that these activities was the triggering event that caused their last argument, an
argument that ended with Mary’s demand that Maqbool leave the house and her
demand for a divorce.
When Maqbool arrived, he noticed that Mary’s SUV was outside. He also
noticed a light in the hallway was on. He walked in the front door, which he said
was unlocked. Maqbool approached the master bedroom, but the door was closed.
Maqbool heard Mary talking before opening the door, but he entered the room
without knocking after being unable to make out what was being said. When he
opened the door, Maqbool saw Mary and Miles in bed.
7
Mary and Miles laughed at Maqbool when he burst into the room. Mary began
shouting. Miles got out of the bed. Maqbool ran to the kitchen and returned with a
knife. Maqbool told the detective that at that point, his memory was not clear about
what happened in the room. He recalled hitting Miles “with something” as the two
men fought. Maqbool denied he knew the object he hit Miles with was a knife. When
Miles went down, Mary told Maqbool she was going to call the police. Maqbool said
that at that point, something exploded in his head. And by then, he recalled having a
baseball bat in his hands, but he denied any memory of striking Mary with the bat.
He recalled that when Mary’s son walked in, he left the house, got into his truck,
and left.
The other testimony offered in punishment provides little more than additional
context to explain why Maqbool killed Miles and hit Mary with a bat. The contextual
evidence shows that Maqbool is a citizen of and raised in Pakistan. Other evidence
in the trial tied the baseball bat and knife found at Mary’s home to the murder and
the aggravated assault.
In final argument, Maqbool’s attorney argued that when Maqbool killed
Miles, Maqbool was in a “glaze of sudden passion” after entering the house. The
attorney pointed out that the jury heard evidence in the trial that Maqbool entered
the house and bedroom unarmed. Maqbool went there, according to the attorney,
solely to find out whether Maqbool and Mary could work things out. Upon entering
8
the bedroom, however, Maqbool snapped when he saw Mary in bed with another
man. What Maqbool saw, the attorney concluded, was an “act of betrayal that
prompted . . . [a] sudden passion response.”
Of course, the prosecutor drew different inferences from the evidence before
the jury in Maqbool’s trial. The prosecutor suggested the evidence did not support
an affirmative finding on sudden passion, noting that Mary and Maqbool had
experienced multiple instances of infidelity in what the prosecutor characterized as
a relatively short marriage, seven months old when the crimes occurred. The
prosecutor emphasized that Maqbool knew before he went to Mary’s that Mary and
Miles had gone out together that evening. Maqbool knew Mary and Miles were
drinking and argued he went there expecting to find the two of them together in bed.
The evidence shows, the prosecutor continued, that Maqbool was planning to harm
Miles and Mary should he find both at Mary’s house.
After the parties completed their arguments, the trial court advised the
punishment evidence was sufficient to raise an issue on some of the elements of a
sudden-passion defense. Even so, the trial court continued, the court was
unpersuaded that the passion Maqbool experienced was sudden or the result of an
adequate cause based on the evidence in the trial. After explaining the reasons for
its ruling, the trial court found: “I’m not going to find the sudden passion.” After
9
announcing its ruling, the trial court pronounced Maqbool’s sentences and sentenced
Maqbool to two, thirty-year concurrent sentences.
Analysis
Sudden-Passion Defense
We will first address Maqbool’s complaint about the trial court’s failure to
find in his favor on his claim of sudden passion before we address his other issue
complaining about the trial court’s ruling admitting the photos of his wife.
A person commits murder if he (1) “intentionally or knowingly causes the
death[,]” or (2) “intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly
dangerous to human life that causes” the death. 4 Normally, convictions for murder
are punishable as first-degree felonies. 5 But if the factfinder returns a verdict in the
defendant’s favor on his claim of sudden passion, the favorable finding reduces the
punishment on the conviction for murder from a felony of the first degree to a
second-degree felony. 6
Under Texas law, the defendant must “prove the issue [on whether he acted
under a sudden passion] by a preponderance of the evidence.”7 To prevail on the
defense at trial, the defendant must obtain an affirmative finding that “he caused the
4Id. § 19.02(b).
5Id. § 19.02(c).
6Id. § 19.02(d).
7Id.
10
death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate
cause.” 8 The term adequate cause carries a statutory definition and means a “cause
that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a
person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool
reflection.”9 The term sudden passion is also statutorily defined and means a
“passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed
or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the
offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.” 10
In this case, the record shows that Maqbool failed to secure a favorable finding
on his sudden-passion defense. When the defendant challenges a factfinder’s failure
to find in his favor on an issue on which he had the burden of proof in the trial, the
negative finding relevant to the issue is reviewed in the defendant’s appeal by
focusing on the evidence that favors the negative finding and disregarding the
evidence contradictory to the finding unless it is evidence that a reasonable factfinder
could not disregard. 11 To prevail in a case involving a challenge to a negative finding
on which the defendant had the burden of proof, the defendant must demonstrate
8Id.
9Id.§ 19.02(a)(1).
10Id.§ 19.02(a)(2).
11Butcher v. State, 454 S.W.3d 13, 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015).
11
that the evidence “relevant to the affirmative defense was conclusive and no
reasonable factfinder, from that evidence, could have found otherwise.”12
While evidence in some cases may be legally sufficient to support a negative
finding, it remains possible that the evidence, while legally sufficient, is nonetheless
factually insufficient to support the negative finding. 13 To resolve a factual
insufficiency argument complaining about a factfinder’s negative finding on a
defense, we view “the entirety of the evidence in a neutral light, rather than the light
most favorable to the verdict.”14 Even so, when conducting a factual sufficiency
review, we are to avoid usurping the trial court’s function as the factfinder so that
we may avoid merely substituting our judgment for the judgment the factfinder made
in the trial, particularly when its ruling rejecting the defensive issue turned on the
credibility of the witnesses that testified.15 Still, we may sustain a factual sufficiency
challenge on appeal if, “after setting out the relevant evidence and explaining
precisely how the contrary evidence greatly outweighs the evidence supporting the
verdict, [we] state[] why the verdict is so much against the great weight of the
evidence as to be manifestly unjust, conscience-shocking, or clearly biased.” 16
12Id.
13Petetan v. State, 622 S.W.3d 321, 357 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021).
14Id.
15Id.
16Id.
12
The description Maqbool gave police hours after killing Miles allowed the
trial court, acting as a rational factfinder, to find that Maqbool failed to carry his
burden to prove that his passion arose from an adequate cause. When viewed in a
neutral light, the evidence shows that Mary and Maqbool had a rocky marriage from
early on. Their marital problems continued after they reconciled following a
separation that occurred only two months into the marriage when Maqbool learned
that Mary was still cheating on the marriage with other men. And a few days before
April 12, 2018, Mary told Maqbool after they argued over matters that relate to her
failure to fulfill the vows of her marriage to clear out. The couple’s problems—from
Maqbool’s account—were largely Mary’s fault. But that was a longstanding
problem even by Maqbool’s own account since Miles was the third person Mary had
sexual relationships with after she married Maqbool.
And even when viewing the evidence in a neutral light, the trial court was not
required to infer that Maqbool was surprised when he walked in the master bedroom
and found Mary in bed with Miles. He knew of the relationship between the two
days before he killed Miles. Mary taunted Maqbool by sending him pictures of the
two of them together the night she kicked him out of the house. Maqbool knew from
what Mary told him in text messages that night that she and Miles were drinking,
and he had acknowledged he knew that when Mary was drinking, she liked to go be
with other men.
13
Angry that their relationship was over and blaming Mary for the couple’s
problems, Maqbool decided to go to Mary’s home and confront her. While Maqbool
told police he went there just so the two of them could talk, as the factfinder, the trial
court was not required to believe that Maqbool was telling the truth about why he
chose to go to Mary’s that night. Instead, the trial court could have reasonably
inferred that Maqbool went there expecting to find Mary and Miles together in bed.
Given the history of the couple’s marriage, the trial court had the discretion to
conclude that Maqbool’s decision to kill Miles did not result from a situation that
would “commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment or terror” it produced
in Maqbool that night had Maqbool been “a person of ordinary temper capable of
cool reflection” when the murder occurred.17
We hold evidence in the trial is legally and factually sufficient to support the
trial court’s finding rejecting Maqbool’s defense of sudden passion. Maqbool’s
arguments to the contrary are overruled.
Photos of Mary’s Injuries
Maqbool’s remaining issues, the second issue that is common to both appeals,
argues the trial court abused its discretion by admitting over his objection the five
photos of Mary taken after the assault. We address the issues together because
17Id.
14
Maqbool’s arguments about why the photos were not admissible are identical in his
appeals.
At trial, Maqbool argued the photos were more prejudicial than probative to
the issues to be decided at punishment. He makes the same argument in the briefs he
filed to support his appeals. According to Maqbool, the photos are unduly prejudicial
because the State offered them to “inflame” the . . . “gross out factor.” Maqbool
contends the photos of Mary’s injuries were not very probative because Mary’s
“injures are not a contested issue” in the trial. Maqbool made the same argument
during his trial. In response, the trial court said: “I have defended and prosecuted
capital murder cases and probably close to 20 other murder cases. So I’m pretty
use[d] to being grossed out by autopsies and photographs of violent, crime scenes.
So I don’t think it’s going to have an effect on me one way or the other.”
On appeal, Maqbool concedes, as he must, that the photos have relevance to
issues decided in punishment since the extent of the victim’s injuries in an assault
case are relevant to a factfinder in deciding what the appropriate length should be
for the defendant’s sentence. Even so, Maqbool argues the trial court should have
excluded the photos because their prejudicial value outweighs their relevance.
On appeal, rulings admitting or excluding evidence are reviewed for abuse of
discretion.18 Under the abuse-of-discretion standard, the reviewing court must
18Ramos v. State, 245 S.W.3d 410, 417-18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
15
uphold the trial court’s ruling if the ruling is reasonably supported by the record and
is correct under any theory of law that applies to the trial. 19 When addressing
arguments complaining a court abused its discretion in conducting the balancing test
required by Rule 403, “that balance is always slanted toward admission, not
exclusion, of otherwise relevant evidence.” 20 “As long as the trial court’s ruling is
within the zone of reasonable disagreement, there is no abuse of discretion[.]”21 To
decide whether photos that a trial court admitted were unfairly prejudicial, we
consider the number of photos, their size, whether they are in color or in black and
white, whether they are “gruesome,” whether the victim shown in the photos is
naked, the availability of other means of proof, and any other circumstances unique
to the case. 22
The circumstances of the offense, including the extent of the victim’s injuries,
are relevant to the normative decision that a factfinder must make in deciding what
punishment fits the crime. 23 The injuries depicted in the photos at issue here were
not taken at angles to make the injuries appear more dramatic or worse than they
were. 24 The photos show the nature of Mary’s injuries since they show the injuries
at 418.
19Id.
20De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336, 343 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).
21Id. (cleaned up).
22Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 317, 331 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
23See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 37.07 § 3(a)(1); Miller-El v. State, 782
S.W.2d 892, 896 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990).
24Id.
16
resulting from being hit in the head with a bat caused bruises to the area around
Mary’s eyes. Both of Mary’s eyelids are bruised and her eyes appear to be swollen
shut. The photos show that Mary suffered several cuts on her head, one that was
large and required stiches and staples to close. As seen in some of the photos, that
wound starts at the top and near the crown of Mary’s head. From there, it runs from
at a slight angle toward the right side of Mary’s forehead. That same wound is the
wound that was closed with stitches and staples before the pictures were taken. The
wound stops at Mary’s hairline, just before it enters her forehead. While the photos
are in color and not black and white, the detective in charge of investigating the
crimes testified he was present when the photos were taken and that they accurately
depict Mary’s condition the day he saw her in the hospital after the assault. While
the photos show Mary lying in a hospital bed, she appears to be clothed in a gown.
The bottom half of Mary’s body is covered by a sheet, so the photos basically show
parts of her arms, hands, and head. The photos are not identical, and there are only
five of them, each taken at a different angle. As a group, they capture the injuries
Mary suffered as a result of the assault.
Given the injuries shown in the photos, we agree with the trial court that they
are unlikely to have impressed a factfinder in any irrational or indelible way. The
State needed the photos to efficiently demonstrate the nature and extent of Mary’s
injuries. Mary did not testify in the trial. No medically trained witnesses responsible
17
for treating her testified either. The photos appear to have been the most efficient
means available for the State to demonstrate how Mary was injured in the assault. It
took little time for the State to lay the predicate required for admitting the photos, as
it laid the predicate through just eight questions. And finally, Maqbool contested the
appropriate length of his sentence.
It follows that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the photos
more probative than prejudicial to the facts of consequence that were at issue in the
trial. We overrule Maqbool’s issues that complain about the trial court’s admission
of the photos.
Conclusion
We overrule Maqbool’s issues seeking to overturn the judgment the trial court
signed in Trial Cause Numbers CR 12,525 and CR 12,526. For the reasons explained
above, the judgments in these causes are
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on September 28, 2021
Opinion Delivered January 12, 2022
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
18