Cary, David Frederick
PD-0445-15
| Tex. App. | Aug 18, 2015Background
- David Cary was convicted by a jury of engaging in organized criminal activity, six counts of bribery, and money laundering; sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment on each count, concurrent.
- The State’s theory: Cary caused roughly $150,000 to be paid to intermediary James Stephen Spencer to benefit Suzanne Wooten (a judicial candidate), using a fabricated consulting agreement (prepared by Cary’s wife Stacy) to conceal the transfers.
- Spencer admitted receiving payments from Stacy Cary and later using funds in connection with Wooten’s campaign; he testified he kept the two clients separate and treated the payments as his earned income.
- The jury was instructed it could convict Cary as principal or under the law of parties; the bribery counts were the predicate for the EOCA and money‑laundering counts.
- The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed and entered acquittal under Jackson v. Virginia, concluding the State’s proof showed the transfers were political contributions (and thus within the §36.02(d) exception).
- The State petitioned for discretionary review to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, arguing the court of appeals misapplied the legal‑sufficiency standard and the statutory test for what constitutes a “political contribution.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Cary) | Held (Court of Appeals) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a reasonable juror could find Cary did not intend the payments to be "political contributions" (Election Code) | Payments were covert bribes devised to procure favorable judicial outcomes; intent is subjective at the time of each transfer, so ultimate use by recipient is not dispositive | Payments (as ultimately used) funded Wooten’s campaign and therefore were political contributions within §36.02(d) exception | Court of Appeals: evidence showed the only benefit was transfers that funded Wooten’s campaign; acquitted under Jackson (payments treated as political contributions) |
| Whether evidence was legally sufficient to prove bribery beyond a reasonable doubt | When viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, circumstantial and testimonial evidence support conviction for bribery (inchoate offers/agreements suffice) | State failed to disprove the §36.02(d) exception; no proof of corrupt intent distinct from a political contribution | Court of Appeals: insufficient evidence to sustain bribery convictions; reversed and acquitted |
| Whether convictions for engaging in organized criminal activity and money laundering were supported | Those counts depend on bribery predicate; if bribery stands, EOCA and money‑laundering convictions follow | Same sufficiency argument; without bribery predicate convictions cannot stand | Court of Appeals: having acquitted on bribery, it reversed the remaining counts too |
| Proper standard of appellate review for legal sufficiency (Jackson v. Virginia) | Jackson requires viewing all evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to verdict; the appellate court erred by reweighing credibility and substituting its view | Appellant relied on objective record of fund use to argue insufficiency | Court of Appeals treated the funds’ ultimate use as dispositive and effectively reweighed evidence, resulting in reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases) (establishes Jackson standard)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (Jackson is the sole sufficiency standard; appellate court may not reweigh evidence)
- Martinez v. State, 696 S.W.2d 930 (Tex. App.—Austin 1985) (bribery can be an inchoate offense; offering or soliciting a benefit completes the offense)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (circumstantial and direct evidence treated equally under sufficiency review)
- Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (discussed as an outdated sufficiency approach; caution against requiring disproof of every rational alternative)
- David Cary v. State, 460 S.W.3d 731 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015) (court of appeals opinion reversing convictions on sufficiency grounds; central decision under review)