Eduardo Rayo v. State
05-16-00895-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 21, 2017Background
- On April 11, 2015, two armed men forced entry into Heather Molina's apartment; Heather was struck and fatally shot in front of several children who witnessed the attack.
- Multiple child witnesses identified two Hispanic men; one witness (Angel) identified Eduardo Rayo in court as the shooter.
- Appellant Eduardo Rayo was stopped shortly after the crime; gunshot residue on him was consistent with recent firing or proximity to a fired weapon.
- In a recorded interview, Rayo admitted going to the apartment with another man, saying they were sent by “Polo,” that the other man produced a gun, that the other man shot Heather, and that Rayo received some of the taken property.
- Rayo was indicted for capital murder and convicted; trial court’s judgment incorrectly described the capital-murder theory, prompting modification on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether including a conspiracy definition in the jury charge improperly authorized conviction of the separate offense of criminal conspiracy | State: The charge did not instruct jury to convict for conspiracy as a separate offense; it properly instructed on parties liability under Penal Code §7.02(b) (co-conspirator liability) | Rayo: The charge imported a conspiracy offense not alleged in the indictment and not a lesser-included offense of capital murder | Court: Overruled — charge constitutionally presented an alternative parties theory under §7.02(b) (Montoya controls) |
| Whether the charge failed to apply the law of parties under §7.02(a)(2) to the facts | State: Evidence supported conviction either as principal or under co-conspirator theory; no harmful error | Rayo: Jury instructions did not properly apply §7.02(a)(2) facts to permit party liability conviction | Court: Overruled — evidence supported conviction as principal and under §7.02(b), so any omission on §7.02(a)(2) application did not require reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Montoya v. State, 810 S.W.2d 160 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (including a conspiracy definition in the charge may be an alternative parties instruction under §7.02(b))
- Pitts v. State, 569 S.W.2d 898 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (if evidence supports conviction as principal, no need to rely on parties theory)
- Wallace v. State, 618 S.W.2d 67 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (if §7.02(b) supports conviction, §7.02(a) party theory need not be relied upon)
- Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (appellate courts may modify clerical errors in judgments to reflect the correct offense)