Arzate, Francisco, PD-1343-15

Defendant Francisco Arzate was convicted by jury of capital murder for the fatal shooting of his father‑in‑law, Guillermo Valdez; sentenced to life imprisonment. Appeal affirmed by First Court of Appeals (memorandum opinion).
At trial no witness saw the shooter’s face; three witnesses who knew Arzate (his estranged wife Patricia’s parents and nephew) identified the shooter by voice and one witness saw the shooter’s side/profile or shadow.
Events: months of marital conflict; Arzate left a threatening voicemail the night of the shooting; shortly after the murder he traveled to Mexico (allegedly unable to return) and later sent texts/letters that included apologies, threats, and requests that Patricia provide an alibi.
Additional post‑crime conduct: calls threatening relatives and an employer, requests to create an alibi, and suggested flight to Mexico — offered by the State as consciousness of guilt.
No physical evidence (fingerprints, DNA, ballistics) tied Arzate to the scene. Appellant’s sole appellate claim challenged legal sufficiency of the evidence, arguing voice identification alone was insufficient.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Arzate)	Held
Whether evidence was legally sufficient to support capital murder conviction	Voice identification by three witnesses who knew Arzate, combined with post‑crime flight, threats, requests for an alibi, and other circumstantial evidence, established identity and guilt	Voice identification alone is unreliable and, absent physical or eyewitness identification, cannot sustain a conviction	Court affirmed: viewing all evidence in light most favorable to verdict, a rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency review)
Locke v. State, 453 S.W.2d 484 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970) (voice is competent means of identification when witness had prior acquaintance)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence can be sufficient)
Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (review of all evidence in sufficiency analysis)
Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (circumstantial evidence and combined inference analysis)