Demuntra Rashard Green v. State
05-14-01264-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 3, 2015Background
- Victim Vasile Cartojan was shot and killed outside his townhouse on May 19, 2013; death caused by a close-range gunshot to the chest/abdomen.
- Witness Kai Kannapas heard a single pop, saw Cartojan run to the alley, and then heard him say he had been shot; emergency responders were called but victim died.
- Investigators recovered the victim’s car and multiple items (sandal, sunglasses, cigarettes, bag with marijuana, a brown cigarette); DNA swabs from items matched appellant Demuntra Rashard Green.
- A witness (Washington) placed Green and two others leaving an apartment in a silver BMW the afternoon of the incident; one companion appeared upset and others discussed the car/keys.
- Green was charged with capital murder, convicted by a jury after the State presented forensic, eyewitness, and investigative evidence; he did not testify; punishment evidence included expert gang testimony about Green’s tattoos and gang affiliation.
- The jury sentenced Green to 45 years’ imprisonment and a $10,000 fine; Green appealed challenging sufficiency of the evidence and admission of gang evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence of murder culpable mental state | State: evidence (DNA, witness, close-range shooting, use of deadly weapon) supports finding of intent/knowledge | Green: his statement claimed the gun discharged accidentally when he grabbed it after being hit; thus insufficient to prove intent/knowledge | Affirmed: jury could reject Green’s story; deadly weapon fired at close range supports intent/knowledge under Jackson standard |
| Admissibility of gang-membership evidence (art. 61.02) | State: gang evidence admissible at punishment; also met identification criteria (tattoos, juvenile documentation, association) | Green: trial court erred because he was not properly identified as a gang member under art. 61.02 | Affirmed: art. 61.02 governs databases not punishment admissibility; State satisfied identification criteria and admission was proper |
| Admissibility of gang-opinion testimony (Rule 404/403) | State: expert may testify about membership, gang reputation and activities to show character at punishment | Green: testimony was irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial under Rules 404/403 | Affirmed: article 37.07 allows character/bad-acts at punishment; Beasley factors met; probative value outweighed prejudice; limited testimony and photos were not unduly prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (established standard for legal-sufficiency review)
- Burden v. State, 55 S.W.3d 608 (circumstantial and direct evidence treated same for sufficiency)
- Gamblin v. State, 476 S.W.2d 18 (use of deadly weapon may show intent to kill)
- Stills v. State, 492 S.W.2d 478 (firing a deadly weapon at close range creates presumption of intent to kill)
- Hernandez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 806 (culpable mental state usually proven by circumstantial evidence)
- Bonham v. State, 680 S.W.2d 815 (jury is sole judge of witness credibility)
- Beasley v. State, 902 S.W.2d 452 (gang affiliation and reputation admissible at punishment under art. 37.07)
- Williams v. State, 958 S.W.2d 186 (Rule 403 presumes relevant evidence is more probative than prejudicial)
- Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870 (defining probative value and unfair prejudice under Rule 403)
- Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 317 (Rule 403 applies only when clear disparity between prejudice and probative value exists)