Abey Belette Girma v. State, 05-14-00023-CR

Late night Aug. 15, 2012: Lemma (Yared) Yayehyirad and his wife Desta (Salome) Yenenesh were shot to death at their front door; each sustained three gunshot wounds. Medical examiner placed at least some shots within a few inches to a few feet.
No weapon found at scene; fired casings collected. Ballistics later matched a nine‑mm Taurus recovered from appellant’s car.
Appellant (Abey Girma) fled Texas, forced a coworker (Djungu‑Sungu) to drive him across states, and was later arrested in Aurora, Colorado.
Appellant confessed in a recorded interview, admitting he followed the couple, confronted them on the porch, and shot them; he claimed he did not intend to kill but said he was "ready for anything."
Trial: jury convicted Girma of capital murder for killing more than one person in the same criminal transaction; sentenced to life without parole.
Appeal posture: sole issue challenges sufficiency of evidence that Girma had the specific intent to kill Salome.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Girma had the specific intent to kill Salome	State: multiple close‑range shots to Salome, use of a deadly weapon, matching ballistics, confession, and flight support an inference of specific intent to kill	Girma: claimed lack of specific intent to kill Salome (challenging proof as to that victim)	Affirmed — a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt Girma intended to kill Salome

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (deference to factfinder on credibility and inferences)
Ex parte Norris, 390 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (capital murder under §19.03(a)(7)(A) requires specific intent to kill as to each victim)
Hall v. State, 418 S.W.2d 810 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967) (intent to kill may be inferred from acts, words, and conduct)
Kincaid v. State, 198 S.W.2d 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 1946) (same)
Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence)
Brown v. State, 122 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (use of deadly weapon supports inference of intent to kill)
Adanandus v. State, 866 S.W.2d 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (deadly‑weapon use in deadly manner gives near‑conclusive inference of intent)
Womble v. State, 618 S.W.2d 59 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (close‑range firearm use resulting in death presumes intent to kill)
Bigby v. State, 892 S.W.2d 864 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (flight and concealment evidence shows consciousness of guilt)
Cantrell v. State, 731 S.W.2d 84 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (same)
Sorto v. State, 173 S.W.3d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (jury may accept or reject defendant’s statements about intent)