Gross v. State
2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1329
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- Gross was convicted of murder as a party and sentenced to ten years; on discretionary review the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the court of appeals' acquittal ruling as to murder under the law of parties.
- The victim, Corkney Lee, was shot by Gross's brother-in-law, Jones; Gross's trial involved his own testimony read into Jones's trial; no eyewitnesses testified.
- Key factual scene: at a gas station parking lot, verbal altercation escalated; Jones appeared with a shotgun; Lee fled toward the store; gun fired; Gross drove away with Jones and the gun.
- The next day Gross contacted police via a friend of the department; a confidential informant claimed Gross admitted involvement; a probable cause warrant led to questioning.
- Procedural history: Gross was convicted at trial; the Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed and acquitted under the law of parties; the State sought discretionary review on sufficiency and intent.
- Applicable legal framework centers on sufficiency of evidence for party liability under Jackson v. Virginia and the law of parties, including pre-, during-, and post-offense conduct and the need for an actual common design.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court of appeals erred in its sufficiency review | State argues divide-and-conquer misapplied evidence, ignoring a plan. | Gross argues post-offense conduct cannot create liability and that evidence lacks prior/contemporaneous plan. | No; insufficient to prove a prior/contemporaneous plan; affirm acquittal on party liability. |
| Whether the evidence supports appellant’s intent under the law of parties | State asserts presence, weapon, control, and post-offense acts show intent or common design. | Gross contends evidence relies on speculation; no proven prior/contemporaneous agreement. | No; cumulative evidence does not establish a plan; mere presence and post-offense acts are insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrison v. State, 608 S.W.2d 233 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (acts after the offense do not create party liability)
- Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (presence and circumstantial evidence can support party liability in a robbery-murder)
- Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (strong motive and pre/post conduct can establish participation in murder)
- Thompson v. State, 697 S.W.2d 413 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (mere presence and flight are insufficient without other evidence)
- Randolph v. State, 656 S.W.2d 475 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (requires encouragement or prior/contemporaneous agreement to support liability)
- Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (jurors may draw reasonable inferences from evidence)