William Rivers Deas v. State

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-11-00158-CR
WILLIAM RIVERS DEAS APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 30TH DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Upon his plea of guilty, a jury convicted Appellant William Rivers Deas of
intoxication manslaughter with a deadly weapon. The jury assessed his
punishment at eight years’ confinement and a $10,000 fine. The trial court
sentenced him accordingly. Appellant brings two issues on appeal, arguing (1)
that the deadly weapon finding should be deleted from the judgment because
neither the trial court nor the jury made an affirmative finding that he used or
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
exhibited a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense, and the
evidence submitted to support his guilty plea was insufficient to support the
deadly weapon finding; and (2) that the trial court abused its discretion when it
admitted certain State’s exhibits over Appellant’s objection. Because the trial
court committed no reversible error and because the evidence was sufficient to
support the deadly weapon finding, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Background Facts
Appellant struck a Time Warner Cable work truck with his Isuzu Rodeo in
the early morning hours of February 10, 2010. Kevin Becker, a Time Warner
employee, was working in the elevated bucket attached to the truck at the time of
the collision. Becker was thrown from the bucket and killed. Blood tests showed
that Appellant had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.2.
Appellant was charged with one count of intoxication manslaughter, and
the count contained a deadly weapon allegation. At trial, the prosecutor read the
entire indictment, the trial court asked Appellant how he pled, and Appellant
stated, in the presence of the jury, “Guilty, Your Honor.” The trial court’s charge
instructed the jury to find Appellant “guilty as charged” of intoxication
manslaughter.
Deadly Weapon Finding
In his first issue, Appellant challenges the deadly weapon finding. He
argues that, although the jury charge contained a definition of the term “deadly
weapon,” the verdict forms did not ask the jury to make an affirmative finding on
2
the deadly weapon issue. Appellant also argues that the State must submit
sufficient evidence to encompass every essential element of the alleged offense.
He points out that the State did not submit sufficient evidence of guilt, nor did he
offer a judicial confession encompassing the elements of the offense.
It is well-established that in a felony case, a plea of guilty before the jury
admits the existence of all necessary elements to establish guilt.2 In the case
now before this court, Appellant entered his plea of guilty before the jury to the
allegations in the entire indictment, including the allegation that the vehicle with
which he caused the death of Becker was a deadly weapon. The trial court
instructed the jury to find Appellant “guilty as charged of Intoxication
Manslaughter in the indictment . . . .” The presiding juror signed the verdict form
that provided, “We, the jury, find [Appellant] guilty of the felony offense of
Intoxication Manslaughter with a Deadly Weapon as alleged in the
indictment . . . .” We therefore hold the evidence sufficient to support Appellant’s
conviction and the deadly weapon allegation. We further hold that the jury
specifically entered a deadly weapon finding. We overrule Appellant’s first issue.
Admissibility of Photographs
In his second issue, Appellant argues that five photographs admitted as
State’s exhibits 11, 32, 33, 34, and 35 respectively were unduly prejudicial and
that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting them during the punishment
2
Holland v. State, 761 S.W.2d 307, 312 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988), cert.
denied, 489 U.S. 1091 (1989).
3
phase because their prejudicial effect substantially outweighed any probative
value.3 To the extent that Appellant complains that any of the challenged exhibits
were not relevant, he did not raise that contention below and it is therefore
forfeited.4
To be admissible during the punishment phase of the trial, the evidence
presented must be helpful to the jury.5 As the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
has explained,
Rule 403 requires that a photograph have some probative value and
that its probative value not be substantially outweighed by its
inflammatory nature. A court may consider many factors in
determining whether the probative value of photographs is
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. These
factors include: the number of exhibits offered, their gruesomeness,
their detail, their size, whether they are in color or black-and-white,
whether they are close-up, whether the body depicted is clothed or
naked, the availability of other means of proof, and other
circumstances unique to the individual case. The admissibility of
photographs over an objection is within the sound discretion of the
trial judge.6
A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is arbitrary or
unreasonable.7
3
See Tex. R. Evid. 403.
4
See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); Wilson v. State, 311 S.W.3d 452, 473–74
(Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (op. on reh’g); Lovill v. State, 319 S.W.3d 687, 691–92
(Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530, 532–33 (Tex. Crim. App.
2009); Mendez v. State, 138 S.W.3d 334, 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).
5
Erazo v. State, 144 S.W.3d 487, 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).
6
Will. v. State, 301 S.W.3d 675, 690 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (citations
omitted).
7
Montoya v. State, 291 S.W.3d 420, 426 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).
4
The challenged photographs depict Becker’s body or a portion of his body
at the scene of the collision. And the photographs are disturbing. But as the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has stated, even gruesome photographs that
merely depict the gruesomeness of the crime scene are not necessarily so
inflammatory that the prejudicial effect substantially outweighs the probative
value.8 The photographs show the violence of the impact and the injuries to
Becker. We therefore hold that the trial court could have properly determined
that their prejudicial effect does not substantially outweigh their probative value.
Consequently, we further hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by
admitting the exhibits over Appellant’s objection. We overrule his second issue.
Conclusion
Having overruled Appellant’s two issues, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
LEE ANN DAUPHINOT
JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: March 15, 2012
8
Long v. State, 823 S.W.2d 259, 273 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), cert. denied,
505 U.S. 1224 (1992).
5