Gray, Robert James Jr.
PD-1536-15
| Tex. App. | Nov 24, 2015Background
- Victim Brandon White (15) was found unresponsive Jan 7–8, 2013 with bruises, ligature marks, gag markings, and signs of positional asphyxiation; medical examiner concluded homicide (positional asphyxia/ligature) and blunt-force injuries.
- Appellant Robert James Gray was arrested; DNA testing matched blood on sheets/pillowcases/strips to Brandon and Gray; witnesses and an inmate reported Gray admitted restraining/hogtying and gagging Brandon.
- Gray was indicted for murder (felony-murder theory and alternative manner-and-means alleging tying, gagging, blunt force trauma, impeding breathing).
- At trial jury convicted Gray of murder and sentenced him to 90 years' imprisonment; Gray appealed raising six main issues.
- Trial rulings challenged on appeal: sufficiency of evidence (causation), motion to strike evidence/perjury accusation re: pillowcases, jury charge (omission and causation language), motion to quash amended indictment, admission of extraneous-offense evidence at punishment, and denial of motion to suppress statements (Miranda).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Gray) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence (causation) | Evidence (injuries, ligature marks, petechiae, DNA, medical opinion) supports jury finding Gray's acts caused death | Seizure disorder or accidental fall could alone have caused death; State didn't prove causation beyond reasonable doubt | Affirmed — evidence sufficient to support murder conviction (jury could rationally find Gray's acts caused death) |
| Motion to strike / alleged perjured testimony re: pillowcases | No perjury; detective consistently said camo pillowcase was outermost and that lab could be asked about additional cases; any inconsistency went to weight | State misled jury by half-truths about number/collection of pillowcases and should have item(s) stricken | Affirmed — no prosecutorial use of known false testimony; trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion to strike |
| Jury charge: omission language & causation placement | Charge included abstract causation instruction (section 6.04 language); State applied abstract instruction to facts in argument | Omission language ("by act or omission") read aloud and causation not repeated in each application paragraph deprived Gray of proper instruction | Affirmed — no reversible error; omission language did not cause egregious harm under Almanza; causation instruction in abstract plus counsel argument sufficed (some-harm standard applied) |
| Motion to quash amended indictment (manner-and-means added) | Amendment (naming victim; adding manner-and-means) was proper and not a new statutory offense; not prejudicial and allowed before trial per art. 28.10 | Amendment charged a different/offending manner and prejudiced Gray's substantial rights | Affirmed — amendment did not charge a different statutory offense nor prejudice defendant's substantial rights |
| Admission of extraneous-offense evidence at punishment (pen packets) | Pen packets are self-authenticating; trial court properly admitted records to prove prior convictions for enhancement | Pen packets incomplete/missing fingerprint cards; convictions may be invalid or result of waivers; admission prejudiced Gray | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion admitting pen packets subject to proof; exhibits supported prior convictions |
| Motion to suppress statements (Miranda/custody/voluntariness) | First interview (Jan 8) non-custodial and voluntary; second (post-arrest) custodial and Miranda warnings given — statements admissible | Gray was sleep-deprived/stressed and lacked capacity; statements were involuntary or taken without proper waiver | Affirmed — trial court findings supported: first interview non-custodial and voluntary; second custodial with Miranda; statements admitted properly |
Key Cases Cited
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (standard for harm review of jury-charge error; "some" vs "egregious" harm)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency review — evidence viewed in light most favorable to verdict)
- Ex parte Chabot, 300 S.W.3d 76 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (due-process claim where State knowingly uses false testimony)
- Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (function/structure of jury charge: abstract vs application paragraphs)
- State v. Moff, 154 S.W.3d 599 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (indictment sufficiency is legal question reviewed de novo)