NO. 05-10-00488-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 5TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DALLAS, TEXAS RANDALL JOSEPH DAWSON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ON APPEAL IN CAUSE NUMBER 058504 FROM THE 15TH DISTRICT COURT OF GRAYSON COUNTY, TEXAS APPELLEE'S BRIEF KARLA BAUGH HACKETT ASST. CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY BAR NO. 01923400 GRAYSON COUNTY, TEXAS 200 S. CROCKETT SUITE 100 SHERMAN, TEXAS 75090 903/ 813-4361 903/ 892-9933 (FAX) ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED
LIST OF PARTIES APPELLANT: RANDALL JOSEPH DAWSON ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: AT TRIAL: GARLAND CARDWELL 123 S. TRAVIS ST. BAR NO. 03790600 903/893-8161 FAX: ON APPEAL: JASON BUTSCHER 500 S. CROCKETT ST. BAR NO. 00795277 903/892-8414 FAX: 903/892-8411 ON APPEAL KARLA BAUGH HACKETT BAR NO. 01923400 ASST. CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY GRAYSON COUNTY, TEXAS 200 S. CROCKETT SUITE 100 903/ 813-4361 903/ 892-9933 (FAX) APPELLEE: THE STATE OF TEXAS ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE: ELECTED OFFICIAL JOSEPH D. BROWN BAR NO. 00793413 CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY GRAYSON COUNTY, TEXAS 200 S. CROCKETT SUITE 100 (903) 813-4361 903/ 892-9933 (FAX) AT TRIAL J. BRETT SMITH BAR NO. 00792841 ASST. CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY GRAYSON COUNTY, TEXAS 200 S. CROCKETT SUITE 100 903/ 813-4361 903/ 892-9933 (FAX) STATE'S BRIEF 05-10-00488-CR - PAGE ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF PARTIES... TABLE OF CONTENTS... ii iii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES... 2 CASES:... 2 ISSUES PRESENTED... 3 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT... 3 ARGUMENT... 4 RESPONSE POINT 1: THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT TRIAL WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT THE APPELLANT COMMITTED THE OFFENSE OF ROBBERY.... 4 A. LEGAL SUFFICIENCY... 5 B. SUFFICIENT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE... 6 PRAYER... 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE... 9 STATE'S BRIEF 05-10-00488-CR - PAGE 1
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES: Ex Parte Schuessler, 846 S.W.2d 850-B, 852, n. 5 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993)... 5 Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex.Crim.App.2007).... 6 Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1973)... 5 Moreno v. State, 755 S.W.2d 866, 867 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988)... 5 Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 42 (1982)... 6 STATE'S BRIEF 05-10-00488-CR - PAGE 2
NO. 05-10-00488-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 5TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DALLAS, TEXAS RANDALL JOSEPH DAWSON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: COMES NOW THE STATE OF TEXAS, hereinafter referred to as the State, and submits this brief pursuant to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and would show through her attorney the following: ISSUES PRESENTED RESPONSE POINT 1: THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT TRIAL WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT THE APPELLANT COMMITTED THE OFFENSE OF ROBBERY. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT In his sole point of error, the appellant alleges that the evidence was STATE'S BRIEF 05-10-00488-CR - PAGE 3
insufficient to prove that he committed the offense of robbery. Specifically, the appellant alleges that there was no direct evidence to link the appellant to a ransom note or hoax bomb used to threaten store employees and place them in fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury. Although there was no forensic evidence to tie the applicant, the circumstantial evidence pointed to the applicant as the person robbing the Save A Lot. The appellant had motive, by way of being recently fired and having financial problems severe enough that he was about to be evicted. The applicant was seen with a package entering the store the day before the robbery, but leaving without that package. The appellant had discussed with a friend the best way to rob that particular store. The appellant was also identified as the person who paid a man to deliver a sealed ransom note. A rational juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the applicant was the individual who attempted to rob the Save A Lot. The evidence is legally sufficient to support a guilty verdict. ARGUMENT RESPONSE POINT 1: THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT TRIAL WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT THE APPELLANT COMMITTED THE OFFENSE OF ROBBERY. In his sole point of error, the appellant alleges that the evidence was STATE'S BRIEF 05-10-00488-CR - PAGE 4
insufficient to prove that he committed the offense of robbery. Specifically, the appellant alleges that there was no direct evidence to link the appellant to a ransom note or hoax bomb used to threaten store employees and place them in fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury. A. LEGAL SUFFICIENCY In Jackson v. Virginia, the Supreme Court has set out clearly that an appellate court's task is to consider all of the record evidence and any reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict and to determine whether, based on that evidence and those inferences, a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt [the elements of the offense of the issue under consideration.] Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1973). Thus, the proper review is a very limited one. The appellate court does not "act as a thirteenth juror re-evaluating the weight and credibility of the evidence. Rather, [they] act only as a final due process safeguard ensuring... the rationality of the factfinder." Moreno v. State, 755 S.W.2d 866, 867 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988). In contrast, the issue of factual sufficiency is a question of what proof was adduced at trial. Ex Parte Schuessler, 846 S.W.2d 850-B, 852, n. 5 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993). Under the framework created in Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996), the Court of Criminal Appeals held that [i]n conducting a factual sufficiency review, an appellate court reviews the factfinder's weighing of the evidence and is authorized to disagree with the fact finder's determination. This review, however, must be appropriately STATE'S BRIEF 05-10-00488-CR - PAGE 5
deferential so as to avoid an appellate court's substituting its judgment for that of the [factfinder]. Id. at 133.(emphasis added). If a reviewing court determines that the evidence is insufficient legally, under the Jackson standard, it must render a judgment of acquittal. Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 42 (1982). Direct evidence is not a prerequisite for sufficiency of the evidence. 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. B. SUFFICIENT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE On March 3, 2009, the appellant was in the parking lot of the Save A Lot grocery store in Sherman, Texas. While there, the defendant paid Crisoforo Zamora five dollars to take a note to the store management of Save A Lot. (RR vol. 4, pp. 63-65) The note was a ransom note and it told the management there was a bomb inside the store and that if money was not promptly delivered, that bomb would explode. (RR vol. 7, SX 2; vol. 5, pp. 116-124) Forensic examination STATE'S BRIEF 05-10-00488-CR - PAGE 6
could not confirm that the appellant wrote that note, nor could it exclude him as the writer. (RR vol. 5, p. 32) The hoax bomb was sophisticated and had been designed to look like a real bomb. (RR vol. 3, pp. 70, 73, 80-81, ) Even members of the Denton County Bomb Squad thought it looked real until it was exploded. (RR vol. 4, pp. 139-140, 146-147) The appellant had expressed a desire to officers that he would like to go back to college to be an engineer. (RR vol. 3, p. 103) The evidence also proved that the appellant used to work for Save A Lot, but had recently been fired a few weeks prior to the robbery in this case. (RR vol. 3, pp. 28, 100-102; vol. 4, pp. 101, 115) The appellant had expressed anger towards the store. (RR vol. 3, pp. 28-29) Further, the appellant had financial problems and was behind on his rent, facing eviction. (RR vol. 4, p. 186) The appellant had also told Julie Soto, another former employee of the Save A Lot store in Sherman, Texas, how the Save A Lot was ripe for being robbed. (RR vol. 3, p. 21) The applicant described the fact that there were no cameras rolling and there was hardly anyone working there at night. (RR vol. 3, p. 21) The applicant described to Ms. Soto that the Save A Lot was a big pussy waiting to get fucked. (RR vol. 3, p. 22) The applicant also described to Ms. Soto the location of the cameras, and the fact that the cameras did not work, as well as why the first of the month would be the best time to rob the store. (RR vol. 3, p. 22) The appellant also told Ms. Soto that right after closing would be the best STATE'S BRIEF 05-10-00488-CR - PAGE 7
time to rob the store. (RR vol. 3, pp. 22-23) On March 2, 2009, the appellant went into the Save A Lot with a package or sack, went to the back of the store where the restroom was located, then left without the package. (RR vol. 4, pp. 157-158; 173-176) The next day is when Mr. Zamora reported to the police that the appellant approached him to deliver the ransom note. (RR vol. 4, pp. 63-64) Although there was no forensic evidence to tie the applicant, the circumstantial evidence pointed to the applicant as the person robbing the Save A Lot. The appellant had motive, by way of being recently fired and having financial problems severe enough that he was about to be evicted. The applicant was seen with a package entering the store the day before the robbery, but leaving without that package. The appellant had discussed with a friend the best way to rob that particular store. The appellant was also identified as the person who paid a man to deliver a sealed ransom note. A rational juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the applicant was the individual who attempted to rob the Save A Lot. The evidence is legally sufficient to support a guilty verdict. PRAYER WHEREFORE, the state respectfully prays this court affirm the judgment and conviction herein. Respectfully Submitted, JOSEPH D. BROWN STATE'S BRIEF 05-10-00488-CR - PAGE 8
CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY KARLA BAUGH HACKETT ASST. CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY GRAYSON COUNTY, TEXAS BAR NO. 01923400 200 S. CROCKETT, SUITE 100 SHERMAN, TEXAS 75090 903/ 813-4361 ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE mailed to: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion was JASON BUTSCHER 500 S. CROCKETT ST. attorney of record for the Appellant, in accordance of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, on this the day of, 20. KARLA BAUGH HACKETT ASST. CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTY. STATE'S BRIEF 05-10-00488-CR - PAGE 9