Bradney Randall Smith v. State
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 9093
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Three men (Smith, Robinson, Young) agreed to burglarize/rob the Zabokrtsky residence; during the invasion Robinson shot and killed Frank; Young raped and kidnapped Arnola.
- Arnola (82) identified the intruders; the trio fled, were later detained; Frank’s wallet found in Smith’s pocket; one gun recovered near Robinson; DNA linked Young to the sexual assault.
- Smith admitted participation in the burglary and that the group planned a “lick” targeting elderly occupants and brought weapons, bandanas, gloves, and condoms.
- Smith was charged, tried, and convicted of capital murder (murder during burglary or robbery) and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- On appeal Smith challenged: (1) admission of evidence of the sexual assault (Rule 403), (2) sufficiency of evidence under the law of parties (anticipation of murder), and (3) several jury-charge defects (direct-responsibility instruction, omission of victim/owner identification, and lack of unanimity instruction).
Issues
| Issue | Smith's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of sexual-assault evidence (Rule 403/404) | Evidence of Young’s rape was unduly prejudicial and not probative of Smith’s culpability | The rape was same-transaction contextual evidence necessary to understand the crime; probative value outweighed any prejudice | Admission was within trial court’s discretion; evidence was same-transaction contextual and not excluded under Rule 403 |
| Sufficiency under law of parties (anticipation of murder) | No rational juror could find Smith knew or should have anticipated that murder might occur | Evidence (agreement to burglarize elderly victims, weapons, bandanas, condoms, violent conduct) supports inference murder was foreseeable under §7.02(b) | Evidence sufficient for conviction as co-conspirator; jury could reasonably infer murder should have been anticipated |
| Inclusion of direct-responsibility instruction in charge | Instruction was erroneous and harmful because only party liability was supported (Robinson admitted he shot Frank) | Error was harmless; State’s theory at trial was party liability | Error was theoretical only; no egregious harm shown; charge inclusion not reversible error |
| Omission of Frank’s name as owner (identifying robbery/burglary victim) | Jury charge failed to require jury find Frank was the person robbed and owner of the residence | Record showed only one robbery and one burglary (Frank’s home), so omission was not misleading | Omission was not egregiously harmful under Almanza; error theoretical only |
| Failure to give unanimity instruction on alternative theories (burglary v. robbery; principal v. party) | Jury could convict non-unanimously on differing predicate theories; unanimity instruction required | Precedent holds no unanimity instruction required for principal v. party or alternative statutory theories for result-oriented capital murder where same victim is alleged | No error under controlling Texas precedents (Leza, Davis); unanimity instruction not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (standard for trial-court evidentiary discretion and balancing test)
- Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (same-transaction contextual evidence admissible without limiting instruction)
- Santellan v. State, 939 S.W.2d 155 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (extraneous-offense evidence must have relevance apart from character conformity)
- Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (factors for Rule 403 balancing)
- Devoe v. State, 354 S.W.3d 457 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (jury entitled to know relevant surrounding facts of charged offense)
- Watson v. State, 693 S.W.2d 938 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (including direct-responsibility charge when only party liability supported is error but typically harmless)
- Leza v. State, 351 S.W.3d 344 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (no unanimity instruction required on principal vs party theory)
- Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 317 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (capital-murder result-oriented charges do not require unanimity among statutory alternatives)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (Jackson sufficiency review clarified)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)