Eileen Frances North v. State, 05-15-01333-CR

Background

Victim Rosemary Milazzo was found stabbed to death in her home on December 3, 2014; investigators observed extensive blood, bloody sock prints leading through the house, and gas burners left on.
Police found a wallet in the driveway (belonging to Oscar Alvarez) and later connected Alvarez’s July Home Depot purchase records to the location where appellant Eileen North worked; detectives also learned appellant had been at Rosemary’s home shortly before the murder.
Appellant initially denied involvement, later gave varying statements to detectives saying she “walked in on it,” blamed an unknown "Mexican," and at first refused DNA/footprint samples; police later obtained warrants and matched appellant’s footprints to the bloody sock prints and found Rosemary’s DNA on the lower dash of appellant’s SUV.
Forensic testing showed Rosemary’s DNA on appellant’s SUV dashboard and a presumptive blood-positive insole in appellant’s right shoe; medical examiner classified death as homicide by sharp‑force injuries.
Following an interview, appellant was involved in a single‑vehicle crash in which she attempted to harm herself; prosecutors argued this showed consciousness of guilt. Appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to 99 years’ imprisonment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (North)	Held
Effectiveness of counsel for failing to suppress pre‑Miranda statements	Trial counsel’s choice to not suppress was strategic; statements were not a full admission of guilt and admitting parts avoided labeling them confessions	Counsel ineffective for not objecting to admission of appellant’s postarrest statements made without Miranda warnings; those statements were the only link to the crime	Court held no ineffective assistance: record silent as to counsel’s strategy and statement "I walked in on it" was not a clear confession, so Strickland not met
Sufficiency of evidence to prove identity of murderer	Multiple circumstantial links: footprints matching sock prints, appellant’s statements placing her at scene, victim’s DNA on appellant’s SUV, presumptive blood on shoe insole, suicide attempt indicating consciousness of guilt, and planting of Alvarez’s wallet	Evidence insufficient: only sock prints at scene, no definitive match of sock prints to appellant, DNA on dash and presumptive blood inconclusive	Court held evidence legally sufficient when viewed in light most favorable to verdict; jury could reasonably infer appellant was the killer
Admissibility of State's exhibit 642 (timeline summary)	Timeline was a relevant visual aid summarizing trial evidence; any wording issues were cumulative of trial testimony and cross‑examination could address inaccuracies	Timeline contained argumentative or inaccurate language (e.g., “intentionally” crashed, “confesses”) and should have been excluded as improper summary/argument	Even if admission erred under Rule 1006, error was harmless given voluminous admissible evidence duplicating timeline; no reversal

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Robertson v. State, 187 S.W.3d 475 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (deference to counsel’s trial strategy; assess totality of representation)
Jackson v. State, 877 S.W.2d 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (presumption that attorney actions are reasonably professional)
Bone v. State, 77 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (counsel ordinarily must be given opportunity to explain conduct)
Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (ineffectiveness claims must be firmly founded in the record)
Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (no ineffective‑assistance finding when record silent unless conduct is outrageous)
Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (legal‑sufficiency standard: view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (appellate court will not reassess witness credibility)
Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (jury as sole judge of credibility; resolve conflicts in evidence in favor of verdict)
Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (consider properly and improperly admitted evidence on sufficiency review)
Wheatfall v. State, 882 S.W.2d 829 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (limits on use of summaries under Rule 1006; summaries have no independent probative value)
Markey v. State, 996 S.W.2d 226 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999) (summary exhibits cannot substitute for proof and may be inadmissible if argumentative)