Curtis Glaze v. State, 09-13-00549-CR

Curtis Glaze was indicted for murder under Tex. Penal Code § 19.02(b)(1) after Brian Drake Jr. was shot and killed; jury found Glaze guilty and assessed life imprisonment plus a $10,000 fine.
Victims Theal and Herring were riding in Drake’s pickup when a white Dodge Durango pursued them, blocked an intersection, and later chased the truck on Highway 326 at high speed.
Witnesses (including occupants of the Durango and a passenger who later identified Glaze) testified that Glaze leaned out of the Durango and fired a .30-06 rifle at the truck’s rear window; the truck’s rear window was shattered and Drake was struck in the head.
Glaze initially denied involvement, later admitted firing one shot at the truck and claimed he aimed at the vehicle, not a person, and that his cousin Joshua had ordered or threatened him to shoot; officers recovered the rifle where Glaze said he hid it.
Additional evidence included eyewitness testimony that Glaze fired multiple times, a correctional officer’s testimony overhearing Glaze say something like "I got that m----- f---er," and forensic/scene evidence showing a bullet passed through the rear window and struck the headrest area.
On appeal Glaze raised two issues: (1) legal sufficiency of the evidence to show he acted intentionally/knowingly, and (2) alleged jury-charge error permitting a non‑unanimous verdict between murder and manslaughter.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Glaze)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove intent to kill (murder vs lesser)	Evidence (multiple shots from a deadly weapon at an occupied vehicle, flight, threats, incriminating statements) permits inference Glaze intended to cause death.	Glaze argued he shot at the truck (not a person), fired a single shot, and acted under threat from Joshua (kill or be killed).	Affirmed: evidence legally sufficient to prove Glaze intentionally/knowingly caused Drake’s death.
Jury unanimity regarding alternative theories (murder vs manslaughter)	Charge required unanimity and did not permit returning a non‑unanimous verdict; the application paragraph tracked the indictment and required a unanimous verdict before signing.	Glaze argued the charge failed to require unanimity as to which theory (murder or manslaughter) jurors agreed on, risking a non‑unanimous verdict.	Affirmed: no charge error; facts did not present recognized variations causing non‑unanimity and the charge required unanimity.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Gear v. State, 340 S.W.3d 743 (Texas standard for viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict)
Adanandus v. State, 866 S.W.2d 210 (use of a deadly weapon in a deadly manner permits an inference of intent to kill)
Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (two‑step review for jury‑charge error and egregious‑harm standard when no timely objection)
Cosio v. State, 353 S.W.3d 766 (explains unanimity requirement and recognized variations that can produce non‑unanimous verdicts)