Artavious Deon Hollins v. State
01-14-00744-CR
| Tex. App. | Mar 4, 2015Background
- Appellant Artavious Deon Hollins was tried by jury for murder (cause no. 1326112) and tampering with evidence (cause no. 1383738); convicted of murder (life) and tampering (25 years), sentences to run concurrently.
- Incident: Hollins and victim Derrick Williams argued at an apartment complex; Hollins invited Williams into his unit, produced and cocked a pistol, struggled with Williams, and the gun discharged, fatally wounding Williams.
- After the shooting Hollins fled, discarded a white shirt and black cap, hid the gun, changed clothes at a thrift store, and later traveled to Dallas; he was arrested in the Dallas/Arlington area about a month later.
- At trial Hollins claimed he was in the bathroom, did not invite Williams in, and that Williams and another man forced entry and that the shooting occurred during a struggle for Williams’s gun.
- At issue on appeal were (1) whether the trial court erred in admitting CSI Officer Holmes’s testimony that a footprint on Hollins’s door was “old,” and (2) whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support the murder conviction. The State also notes the tampering-with-evidence appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hollins) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of officer’s opinion that footprint was "old" | Testimony admissible as expert opinion under Tex. R. Evid. 702; objection on appeal differs from trial objection; any error harmless | Trial objection was to speculation/lack of personal knowledge under Tex. R. Evid. 602; testimony was improper lay speculation | Overruled: trial objection not preserved; testimony admissible as expert opinion; even if erroneous, admission was harmless |
| Sufficiency of evidence for murder conviction | Circumstantial and direct evidence—invitation inside, drawing/cocking gun, running toward victim, struggle, close-range fatal wound, flight and concealment—supports intent to kill or intent to cause serious bodily injury resulting in death | Hollins contends shooting was accidental or occurred while victim had/struggled for a gun; no proof of intent to kill | Affirmed: viewing evidence in the light most favorable to prosecution, a rational juror could find elements of murder beyond a reasonable doubt under §19.02(b)(1) or (b)(2) |
| Preservation of appeal as to tampering conviction | State: appellant raised no point of error on tampering conviction; appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution | N/A (no appellate challenge) | Tampering-with-evidence appeal subject to dismissal for want of prosecution (per State’s brief) |
| Harmless error standard applied | Any erroneous admission is non-constitutional and must be disregarded unless it affected substantial rights | Argues error affected defendant’s rights by bolstering State’s narrative | Court applied Rule 44.2(b) harmless-error analysis; evidence was cumulative and any effect slight |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for legal sufficiency review)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (sufficiency review framework)
- King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (circumstantial evidence sufficiency principles)
- Godsey v. State, 719 S.W.2d 578 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (use of a deadly weapon supports inference of intent to kill)
- Osbourn v. State, 92 S.W.3d 531 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (when witness may be both percipient and expert, testimony can be admitted under Rule 701 or 702)
- Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (harmless error—nonconstitutional evidence must be disregarded unless substantial rights affected)