Applegate, Candra Nicole
PD-1522-15
| Tex. | Nov 23, 2015Background
- Candra Nicole Applegate was tried jointly with her husband for injuries to their nine‑month‑old twins; indictments charged Appellant with two counts of causing serious bodily injury and two counts of causing bodily injury to a child (some counts alleged omission to provide medical care).
- Medical experts testified the twins had multiple healed and recent fractures (including "corner" fractures) consistent with nonaccidental, forceful twisting/snapping; one child healed with a permanent angular deformity.
- Investigators and family witnesses testified only Applegate or her husband (or both) could have inflicted the injuries; testimony conflicted about which spouse was alone with the children when injuries occurred.
- The jury convicted Applegate on all four counts; trial court sentenced her to concurrent terms (ten years for two bodily‑injury counts; twenty‑six years for two serious‑bodily‑injury counts).
- Appellant argued on appeal the evidence was insufficient because the jury was not instructed on the law of parties (so it could not properly convict her if another person may have caused the injuries), and separately challenged trial‑court comments about "boilerplate" rights. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Applegate's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence given no parties charge | Applegate: evidence showed either she, her husband, or both could have caused the injuries; absent a jury instruction on the law of parties, the State failed to prove she alone caused the injuries beyond a reasonable doubt. | State: indictment and proof focused on Applegate as the actor; medical and circumstantial evidence (force required, prior similar injuries, Applegate often alone with children, failure to seek care) supported a rational finding she intentionally/knowingly caused the injuries. | Court: affirmed convictions under Jackson standard—evidence (medical and circumstantial) was sufficient for a rational jury to find Applegate guilty; lack of a parties instruction did not render evidence insufficient. |
| Failure to provide medical care (omission) sufficiency | Applegate: X‑rays were required to discover some injuries, so she could not have known medical care was necessary; insufficiency to prove omission caused serious bodily injury. | State: visible deformity and testimony (crying at leg touch, permanent angular deformity, Ranger testimony) established Applegate knew or should have known need for care; failure aggravated injury. | Court: affirmed—evidence showed Appellant knew or should have known of need for care and omission caused serious bodily injury. |
| Alleged improper judicial comments on "boilerplate" rights | Applegate: judge's labeling of standard jury instructions as "boilerplate" de‑emphasized constitutional protections and fundamentally harmed her. | State: defense failed to object or seek curative instruction or mistrial; judge explicitly said rights remained important and read instructions fully. | Court: error not preserved; even if remark occurred, judge clarified importance—no reversible harm; issue overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (sets the standard for appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (articulates application of Jackson review in Texas)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (due process/jury‑finding requirements for facts that increase punishment)
- Collier v. Poe, 732 S.W.2d 332 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (discusses due process protections belonging to the individual)
- McMillan v. State, 754 S.W.2d 422 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1988) (affirming conviction under law of parties where evidence showed either defendant or spouse could have committed the offense)
- Walker v. State, 823 S.W.2d 247 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (discusses effect of jury charge phrasing on sufficiency and when evidence fails to support conviction under limited charges)
- Johnson v. State, 364 S.W.3d 292 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (distinguishes result‑oriented offenses where variance between charged act and proven act may be immaterial)