Glaze, Curtis
PD-1367-15
| Tex. App. | Dec 11, 2015Background
- Curtis Glaze was tried by jury and convicted of murder for shooting Brian Drake Jr.; punishment set at life imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.
- Incident: a Durango (occupied by Glaze and his cousin Joshua) pursued a white pickup driven by Drake; shots from a .30-06 rifle struck the pickup’s rear window and Drake’s head area; Drake died.
- Witnesses (passenger Theal, passenger Herring, Mallory Wood) placed Glaze as the shooter and described the pursuit, multiple shots, and the truck’s resulting crash.
- Glaze admitted shooting at the truck but claimed he shot at the vehicle (not a person) and that Joshua coerced him; trial evidence included recorded interviews, recovery of the rifle, and an overheard jailhouse phone statement by Glaze.
- Procedural posture: conviction affirmed by the Ninth Court of Appeals; Glaze sought discretionary review to challenge (1) sufficiency of evidence for intent to kill and (2) alleged jury-charge error permitting a non‑unanimous verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Glaze's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence of intent to kill (murder vs lesser) | Glaze argues evidence is insufficient to show he intentionally or knowingly caused Drake’s death; he shot at the truck and lacked intent to kill | Evidence (multiple shots from a deadly rifle at an occupied vehicle, flight, statements, witness testimony) supports an inference of intent to kill | Affirmed: evidence legally sufficient to support murder conviction |
| Jury-charge unanimity (whether charge allowed non‑unanimous verdict) | Trial charge said the jury must “reach a unanimous decision” but did not explicitly require unanimity as to which criminal conduct (murder vs manslaughter), risking a non‑unanimous verdict | The charge required a unanimous decision before signing the verdict and did not present one of the recognized non‑unanimity scenarios; instruction was adequate | Affirmed: no charge error—charge did not permit a non‑unanimous verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Landrian v. State, 268 S.W.3d 532 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (unanimity requirement applies to finding the specific criminal act)
- Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (1991) (jury must agree defendant committed the same single specific act)
- Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (two‑step review for jury‑charge error and unanimity principles)
- Cosio v. State, 353 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (identifies variations that can produce non‑unanimous verdicts)