Christopher Brian Roberts v. State, 03-14-00637-CR

Background

Christopher Roberts was indicted for murder (charged Jan 22, 2013); a jury convicted him and sentenced him to 50 years (Sept. 26, 2014); appeal filed.
Victim Kirstin Anderson was found dead in the shared residence; medical examiner opined cause of death was strangulation and estimated death occurred at least 12 hours before discovery; toxicology showed BAC .36.
Roberts gave multiple recorded statements saying he restrained Anderson with a choke hold the night before (to calm her during heavy drinking) and later found her unresponsive; he performed CPR and called 911.
Forensic testing: mixed DNA under victim’s fingernails (Appellant not excluded as possible contributor on some swabs), Appellant excluded from DNA on victim’s neck; presumptive blood test on shirt but no confirmatory testing.
Detective White (lead investigator) testified—over defense objection—that based on the investigation and Roberts’s statements he believed the death was intentional/knowing (murder); the defense objected to admission of that opinion and to the omission of a jury charge on manslaughter.
During closing the prosecutor used hypothetical narrative and a stopwatch demonstration about duration of choking; defense objected and moved for mistrial; court overruled many objections (sustained one remark about nurses) and denied mistrial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Roberts)	Held
1. Denial of manslaughter instruction	Murder includes manslaughter; evidence supports only murder.	Roberts argued his statements and investigator’s concessions raised recklessness (manslaughter) and required a lesser-included instruction.	Appellant asks reversal: trial court erred by denying requested manslaughter instruction under Rousseau/Royster two‑prong test.
2. Admission of detective’s opinion on intent	Detective’s opinion helped explain charging decision and evidence.	Roberts argued lay opinion that he acted intentionally/knowingly lacked personal knowledge, invaded jury province, and should be excluded.	Appellant contends the court abused discretion admitting White’s opinion and that it supplanted jury fact‑finding.
3. Sufficiency of evidence for murder conviction	Evidence (forensics, ME findings, statements) supports jury’s finding of intentional/knowing killing.	Roberts contends, without White’s opinion the State failed to prove mental state beyond a reasonable doubt; his recorded statements were speculative and consistent with accidental/reckless conduct.	Appellant asserts evidence legally insufficient and requests reversal.
4. Prosecutor’s improper jury argument	Prosecutor argued permissible deductions and asked jurors to draw on experience.	Roberts argues prosecutor injected new, harmful facts (stopwatch demonstration, conjecture that victim would call police, medical causation assertions) exceeding proper argument and affecting substantial rights.	Appellant contends closing argument was improper and requests reversal or retrial.

Key Cases Cited

Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (two‑prong test for submitting lesser‑included offenses)
Royster v. State, 622 S.W.2d 442 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (lesser‑included offense principles)
Fairow v. State, 943 S.W.2d 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (limits on lay opinion as to another’s mental state)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (legal‑sufficiency standard for evidence reviewed in light most favorable to verdict)
Bignall v. State, 887 S.W.2d 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (lesser‑included instruction must be given if evidence presents a rational alternative)
King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (substantial‑rights standard for reversal; Kotteakos harm analysis)