Christopher Roberts v. State
03-14-00637-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 26, 2016Background
- Christopher Roberts was convicted by a jury of murder for strangling his girlfriend, Kirstin Anderson; punishment 50 years’ confinement.
- Police found Anderson dead; autopsy concluded death by strangulation and manner homicide. Roberts initially minimized/denied culpability in interviews but ultimately confessed that he “killed her.”
- Medical examiner testified that manual strangulation sufficient force and sustained pressure are required to fracture thyroid cartilage and cause death; loss of consciousness can occur within ~15 seconds and death may follow if pressure continued.
- Roberts sought a manslaughter (recklessness) lesser-included instruction; the trial court denied it. He also objected to portions of the detective’s opinion testimony and several prosecutor arguments at closing.
- On appeal Roberts raised four issues: (1) denial of manslaughter instruction, (2) admission of detective’s opinion that this was murder, (3) sufficiency of evidence of intent/knowledge, and (4) improper jury argument. The court affirmed after modifying a clerical error in the written judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Roberts’ Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by refusing manslaughter lesser-included instruction | Evidence (interviews, medical testimony) could support recklessness rather than intent/knowledge | Evidence (confessions and medical findings) showed conduct was intentional/knowing; no affirmative evidence of recklessness | Denied: no more-than-scintilla evidence that defendant was only reckless; instruction not required |
| Whether detective’s testimony that this was a "straightforward murder" was improper opinion testimony | Such testimony was improper lay opinion and supplanted jury’s role | No timely/specific objection preserved the claim; testimony was also based on observations/investigation | Denied on preservation grounds; complaint not preserved for appeal |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove intentional or knowing mental state | No direct evidence of intent/knowledge; conviction should not stand without such proof | Intent/knowledge may be inferred circumstantially from confession, conduct, and autopsy; consider all evidence | Denied: viewing all evidence in light most favorable to verdict, a rational juror could find intent/knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether prosecutor made improper jury arguments requiring reversal/mistrial | Multiple closing remarks exceeded permissible argument, appealed to jurors’ experiences, misstated evidence | Most arguments were permissible (summation or deductions); one remark to nurses was improper but cured by instruction and not harmful | Denied: most complaints unpreserved; the improper personal-experience remark was cured and not so prejudicial to require mistrial |
Key Cases Cited
- Price v. State, 457 S.W.3d 437 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (standard for reviewing jury-charge error)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (harm analysis for charge error)
- Cavazos v. State, 382 S.W.3d 377 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (lesser-included offense analysis)
- Goad v. State, 354 S.W.3d 443 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (two-part analysis for lesser-included offenses)
- Sweed v. State, 351 S.W.3d 63 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (threshold for lesser-included instruction: more than scintilla and directly germane evidence)
- Osbourn v. State, 92 S.W.3d 531 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (lay-opinion testimony under rule 701)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)