366 S.W.3d 830
Tex. App.2012Background
- Carnley appeals a conviction for tampering with physical evidence under Tex. Penal Code § 37.09(a)(1) after a bench trial.
- On Feb. 24, 2009, Graham Police pursued a speeding vehicle driven by Bunting; Carnley and an unnamed juvenile rode as passengers.
- Bunting fled on foot; the Pontiac allegedly left at the scene rolled and struck a mailbox or curb, creating a crime scene.
- Deputy Shockley stopped the Pontiac, identified Carnley as the driver, and noted Bunting’s identity and the car’s contents.
- Carnley admitted driving after Bunting fled, acknowledging the vehicle was evidence and acknowledging the crime scene, yet claimed safety concerns for moving the car.
- The trial court found Carnley guilty and sentenced her to fifteen years; the defense argued insufficiency and directed-verdict challenges, which the court overruled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to support tampering conviction | Carnley | Carnley | Evidence sufficient to prove intentional/knowingly moving vehicle to impair evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 270 S.W.3d 140 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (two culpable mental states; elements of 37.09(a)(1))
- Stewart v. State, 240 S.W.3d 872 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (explains knowledge vs. intent for tampering)
- Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard of review for evidentiary sufficiency)
- Matson v. State, 819 S.W.2d 839 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (confirms presumption in favor of verdict in sufficiency review)
- Hollingsworth v. State, 15 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000) (distinguishes concealment/destruction cases when evaluating sufficiency)
- Pannell v. State, 7 S.W.3d 222 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1999) (addressed evidence relevant to it existing at time of alteration)
- Spector v. State, 746 S.W.2d 945 (Tex. App.—Austin 1988) (distinguishes destruction vs. alteration)