Fred Earl Ingerson, III v. State
2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 11693
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- On June 28, 2008, Robyn Richter and Shawna Ferris were found shot to death in an SUV in a Granbury, Texas parking lot; each received a single gunshot to the head from the passenger side. Investigators later obtained an arrest warrant for Fred Earl Ingerson, III.
- The State presented extensive circumstantial evidence (46 witnesses) including: Ingerson was last seen talking to the women outside the bar; his fingerprints/palm prints were on the driver’s side of the vehicle; a bullet with Ferris’s DNA was recovered from the vehicle; gunshot-residue (GSR) particles were found on pants Ingerson had laundered and under his car seat; a handgun was observed under Ingerson’s seat the day after the killings.
- Forensics: DPS ballistics expert concluded the recovered bullet could have been fired by firearms chambering .38 Special, .357 Magnum, or .38 Super; expert testimony excluded certain guns (including Smith & Wesson) and showed the Colt .38 once owned by Ingerson did not match bullets recovered from an Indiana berm.
- Key weaknesses for the State: no murder weapon was recovered; no ballistic report linked the crime-scene bullet to any gun owned by Ingerson; no DNA, hair, blood, or fibers connected Ingerson’s clothing or shoes to the victims; many unidentified prints existed on the vehicle.
- Procedural posture: Ingerson was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life without parole. On appeal the Fort Worth Court of Appeals reversed and rendered an acquittal, holding the evidence legally insufficient to prove identity/beyond a reasonable doubt. A motion for en banc hearing was denied (dissent noted).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Ingerson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove identity/guilt beyond a reasonable doubt | Cumulative circumstantial proof (relationship with Richter, motive, being last seen with victims, prior ownership of a compatible gun, gun observed in his car, GSR on pants/seat, suspicious post‑murder conduct, incriminating statements) supports a rational juror’s verdict | Evidence is only speculative: no murder weapon, no ballistic/forensic link of the scene bullet to any gun owned by Ingerson, no victim DNA on his clothes, presence at scene alone is insufficient | Reversed: evidence insufficient to prove Ingerson intentionally/knowingly killed victims beyond a reasonable doubt; acquittal rendered |
| Admission of extraneous-offense evidence (State’s Exhibit 17/checks relating to gun purchase) | (State asserted relevance to ownership/identity of firearm connected to crime) | Admission challenged as improper extraneous‑acts evidence | Court did not reach merits after reversing on sufficiency; point preserved but not decided |
| Exclusion of evidence suggesting another person (Mohamed Sylla) had motive | (State relied on investigation focusing on Ingerson) | Argued trial court wrongly excluded evidence pointing to Sylla’s motive/opportunity | Not addressed due to sufficiency ruling; preserved for record but decision unnecessary |
| Denial of en banc hearing | State implicitly sought full-court review; motion for en banc rehearing denied | Ingerson affected by panel decision in his favor (acquittal) | Court denied en banc rehearing; dissent argued en banc review was warranted (procedural vote noted) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (explains application of Jackson to circumstantial-evidence cases; distinguishes inference from speculation)
- Winfrey v. State, 393 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App.) (reiterates limits on speculatory inferences in sufficiency review)
- Greene v. Massey, 437 U.S. 19 (addresses appellate remedies when convictions reversed)
- Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (bars retrial after sufficiency-based reversal; supports rendering of acquittal on appeal)
- Stobaugh v. State, 421 S.W.3d 787 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2014) (cited for principles limiting conviction on mere presence and illustrating sufficiency standards)