Hugo Silva v. State
05-14-00428-CR
Tex. App.Nov 4, 2015Background
- On January 11, 2012 Hugo Silva robbed a Dallas "trap house" (Schofield house) and shot Mark Veloz in the head; Veloz died from the wound.
- Forensic evidence: a 9mm shell casing found at the Schofield house matched a 9mm casing recovered from a December 14, 2011 traffic stop; markings consistent with a Glock. Pathologist testified the shot was fired from more than 2.5 feet away and was rapidly fatal.
- Witnesses and interviews: Silva admitted returning to the house to "hit a lick," taking drugs, money, and guns, and in recorded interviews said he turned and shot Veloz after hearing a sound he thought was a gun being cocked; he also admitted using a 9mm and disposing of the gun.
- Co‑worker/friend testimony: Fernando Hernandez testified Silva possessed and had sold him a 9mm Glock earlier, took stolen drugs to Hernandez, and behaved strangely after the killing.
- Procedural posture: Jury convicted Silva of capital murder (intentional murder in course of robbery) and the trial court assessed life imprisonment; Silva appealed solely arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove specific intent to kill.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Silva) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence is sufficient to prove Silva intentionally caused Veloz's death (specific intent), supporting a capital‑murder conviction under § 19.03(a)(2) | Circumstantial and testimonial evidence (Silva's admissions, use of a deadly weapon fired at the victim's head, matching shell casings, conduct during robbery) permit a reasonable inference Silva intended to kill. | The evidence at most establishes felony murder (death during robbery) and does not prove Silva had the specific intent to kill. | The court affirmed: a rational trier of fact could infer Silva had the intent to kill from his statements and the use of a deadly weapon fired in a deadly manner. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (establishes legal‑sufficiency standard: evidence must permit a rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Matlock v. State, 392 S.W.3d 662 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (applies Jackson standard in Texas appellate review)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence can be as probative as direct evidence)
- Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (intent to kill may be inferred from use of a deadly weapon unless unreasonable to infer death could result)
- Brown v. State, 122 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (use of a deadly weapon is probative of intent to kill)
- Adanandus v. State, 866 S.W.2d 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (if a deadly weapon is used in a deadly manner, an intent to kill may be inferred)
- Godsey v. State, 719 S.W.2d 578 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (explains the near‑conclusive inference of intent when a deadly weapon is used in a deadly manner)