495 S.W.3d 300
Tex. App.2016Background
- Defendant Starsky James Andrus was indicted for intentionally entering a habitation owned by S.L. with intent to commit theft; indictment included a prior burglary enhancement.
- Surveillance video showed a man (later identified as Andrus) entering the garage, moving through a connected breezeway, opening a closet, looking through a window, then going to an outdoor patio and taking cigarettes and a lighter.
- Andrus was detained nearby after a citizen reported seeing someone who matched a photo S.L. showed an acquaintance; S.L. identified the detained man as the person in the footage.
- At the police station Andrus admitted on recorded interview that he entered the garage and later took cigarettes and a lighter from the patio table but denied taking anything while in the garage.
- Trial evidence showed the garage, breezeway, and house shared one roof and S.L. considered the garage and breezeway part of her home; Andrus did not testify.
- Jury convicted Andrus of burglary of a habitation; he appealed raising five issues (sufficiency, directed verdict, juror challenge for cause, and requested lesser‑included instructions for burglary of a building and criminal trespass).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Andrus) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sufficiency of the evidence to prove burglary of a habitation | Evidence (video, ID, and confession) permitted jury to infer entry of habitation with intent to steal | Evidence insufficient: items taken were outside; no proof he intended to steal when entering garage; short time inside | Overruled — evidence sufficient under Jackson standard to support conviction |
| 2. Trial court’s denial of motion for directed verdict | Court properly denied; legal-sufficiency review supports jury verdict | Trial court should have granted acquittal for lack of proof of intent and entry as habitation | Overruled — directed verdict denial treated as sufficiency challenge and denied |
| 3. Denial of challenge for cause to prospective juror (PJ 7) | PJ 7 ultimately said he could follow law; trial court did not abuse discretion | PJ 7’s equivocal answers showed bias; should have been struck for cause | Not preserved for appeal — Andrus used peremptory strikes but did not request additional strikes as required |
| 4. Refusal to charge burglary of a building as lesser-included | N/A (State opposed; court must follow law) | Building is a lesser-included offense and jury should have been charged on it | Overruled — burglary of a building not a rational alternative on these facts (structure was a habitation) |
| 5. Refusal to charge criminal trespass as lesser-included | N/A | Criminal trespass is a lesser-included offense and jury should have been instructed | Overruled — indictment failed to specify type of entry (full vs partial); cognate-pleadings requirement not met so charge not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (appellate review of sufficiency in Texas)
- Langs v. State, 183 S.W.3d 680 (burglary completed when one crosses threshold with intent)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (cumulative force of circumstantial evidence supports conviction)
- Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666 (two-step lesser‑included offense analysis)
- Meru v. State, 414 S.W.3d 159 (cognate pleadings rule and criminal trespass as lesser only if indictment specifies type of entry)
- Shakesnider v. State, 477 S.W.3d 920 (detached or appurtenant garage can be part of habitation)
- Mauldin v. State, 628 S.W.2d 793 (nighttime entry without consent can support intent to steal)
- Allen v. State, 108 S.W.3d 281 (preservation requirements when court denies challenge for cause)