 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hubbard v. State5/25/1999
m on the night the deceased died.
Forensic tests showed no gunpowder residue on appellant's hands. Appellant could, however, have removed any residue by washing his hands. There was residue on the deceased's left hand. It was the opinion of the forensic chemist that the deceased's left hand had to be grasping the gun or at least very close when it was fired. No fingerprints were found on the weapon. A firearms examiner testified that while accidental discharge was possible due to a design defect in the revolver, it was unlikely. Generally, firing the weapon required cocking the hammer and exerting three-and- one-half pounds of force on the trigger.
Dr. Mark Krouse, the medical examiner who autopsied the deceased, testified that her blood alcohol level was .31. The gunshot wound that killed her was fired with loose contact_with the gun's muzzle touching the scalp. The bullet entered the right side of her head and traveled to the left but did not exit. Krouse also described a fresh abrasion on the deceased's left hand and, from the soot markings on her hand, believed that she had died grasping the gun's cylinder. Krouse testified that he believed the deceased had been in a struggle when she was shot. Krouse opined that the cause of death was homicide. He considered the possibility of suicide to be extremely unlikely.
Appellant's son, Edison, testified that he had visited the couple's home only minutes before the shooting. Edison testified that the deceased had answered the door and he saw appellant passed out in a chair. He testified that he did not learn of the shooting until several hours later. Edison admitted however, that he had given the police two statements, the first of which was consistent with his testimony and the second implicating appellant in the deceased's death. Edison testified that the second statement was untrue and that he had told Detective Dennis Meyer, the officer taking the statement, what Meyer wanted to hear after Meyer had arrested him on an unrelated charge and threatened him. Edison admitted he said in the second statement he had been returning from the couple's garage when he heard a gunshot. When he ran into the house, Edison saw appellant rising from the couch only one step away from the deceased's body. Appellant told Edison the deceased had pulled out her gun and had been shot during a struggle when appellant tried to take it from her. Edison's statement described how Edison and appellant had moved the deceased's body into a sitting position in order to make it appear she had committed suicide. Edison then cleaned the gun.
Appellant testified that he and the deceased had been drinking and arguing on the day of her death. Appellant went to sleep in a chair but was awakened by something. The deceased was sitting on the couch. When he saw blood he immediately called 911. He denied picking up the pillows or moving the deceased's body. He suggested the pillows could have rolled off the couch when the deceased shot herself or she could have gotten up after shooting herself and moved them. He contended he made up his statement about struggling with the deceased after Meyer threatened him.
In reviewing the trial court's determination to overrule appellant's motion for directed verdict, we consider whether the evidence presented was legally sufficient to support the jury's verdict. See Madden v. State, 799 S.W.2d 683, 686 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 954 (1991); Jackson v. State, 968 S.W.2d 495, 501 (Tex. App._Texarkana 1998, pet. ref'd). In weighing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we determine whether, after considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, any rational trier of fac
Page 1 2 3 Texas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|