Cantu v. State
395 S.W.3d 202
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Cantu was convicted of murder for Jackie’s death by gunshot in their home (2008).
- He gave inconsistent statements to police and on a 911 call and videotaped interview.
- Crime-scene analysis showed blood spatter and gun placement suggesting he was in the room when shot; some evidence suggested staging.
- Medical examiner and crime-scene experts opined the wound was not consistent with suicide or accidental discharge during a struggle.
- Defense argued the shooting was accidental and Jackie may have held the gun during an argument; State offered expert rebuttal evidence.
- The court affirms the conviction, addressing evidentiary and sufficiency challenges on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Improper comment on defendant’s failure to testify | Cantu; State violated rights by commenting on silence | Comment was improper and prejudicial | Harmless error; conviction affirmed |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove intentional/knowingly caused death | Circumstantial evidence supports guilt; excludes reasonable alternatives | State failed to prove intent beyond reasonable doubt | Evidence sufficient; conviction affirmed |
| Admissibility of prior drug-use evidence under Rule 404(b) | Evidence inadmissible background material | Evidentiary use to rebut defense permitted | Admissible to rebut defensive theory; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Wise v. State, 364 S.W.3d 900 (Tex.Crim.App.2012) (standard for sufficiency review; circumstantial evidence allowed)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court 1979) (sufficiency of evidence in criminal trials)
- Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (excludes need to disprove all reasonable hypotheses on appeal)
- Lair v. State, 265 S.W.3d 580 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (harm analysis for constitutional errors requires considering context)
- Crocker v. State, 248 S.W.3d 299 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007) (harmlessness when curative instructions given)
- Cruz v. State, 225 S.W.3d 546 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (context matters in improper-comment analysis)