Ingerson, Fred Earl Iii
559 S.W.3d 501
Tex. Crim. App.2018Background
- In June 2008 Robyn Richter and Shawna Ferris were found shot to death in Richter’s car outside a Granbury restaurant; both were shot once in the head and the murders occurred around midnight.
- Ingerson had a recent, one-sided companionship with Richter; he was the last person seen with the women at Miyako and was on the last outgoing call from Richter’s phone that ended at 11:53 p.m.
- Security footage placed Ingerson driving away shortly after midnight; police estimated a 10–12 minute window between his last call with Richter and when he was seen leaving the parking lot.
- A .38-caliber projectile with Ferris’s DNA was recovered from the backseat; no murder weapon was recovered but the rifling suggested a Colt-type firearm.
- Evidence: Ingerson previously owned a snub-nosed .38 Special he later claimed he sold; a Kwik Kar technician testified seeing a revolver under Ingerson’s driver’s seat the day after the murders; gunshot-residue (GSR) particles were found on Ingerson’s pants and under his driver’s seat.
- Procedural posture: A Fort Worth Court of Appeals reversed and rendered an acquittal for insufficiency of the evidence (508 S.W.3d 703). The Court of Criminal Appeals granted review, reversed the court of appeals, and remanded for consideration of other claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Ingerson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove identity | Circumstantial evidence (motive, last seen, means, GSR, suspicious post-murder conduct) permits a rational jury to find Ingerson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt | Evidence is circumstantial and equally consistent with innocence; insufficient to identify Ingerson as shooter | Court: Evidence viewed cumulatively in State’s favor is sufficient to support conviction; reversed court of appeals |
| Ownership / disposition of .38 revolver | Ingerson owned the type of gun used, gave evasive/implausible explanations about disposal, and likely concealed the gun (Kwik Kar testimony supports presence) | Claimed he sold the .38 to an unknown person on a beach; no direct proof he still owned it; other explanations exist for technician’s identification | Court: Jury could disbelieve sale story and infer concealment/continued ownership; evidence supports inference he had the likely weapon |
| Weight of GSR and technician testimony | GSR on pants and under seat plus technician’s observation of a revolver under driver’s seat corroborate recent firing and presence of a gun in Ingerson’s car | Technician’s identification was inconsistent; GSR could have innocent explanations; evidence not definitive | Court: Jury entitled to credit technician despite inconsistencies; GSR and testimony are probative and contribute to cumulative sufficiency |
| Post-murder conduct and admissions | Ingerson’s actions (driving past his turn, late-night calls, dry-cleaning clothes, avoiding police, inconsistent statements) are suspicious and inferentially incriminating | Conduct is explainable, not conclusive; some inconsistencies reflect confusion, not guilt | Court: Conduct is circumstantial evidence of guilt that, with other evidence, supports a rational verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Gardner v. State, 306 S.W.3d 274 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (identity may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences)
- Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (implausible explanations and concealing evidence are circumstances of guilt)
- Merritt v. State, 368 S.W.3d 516 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (opportunity and motive are circumstances of guilt)
- Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (flight or fleeing the scene is a circumstance of guilt)
- Ramsey v. State, 473 S.W.3d 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (rejecting improper application of the reasonable-alternative-hypothesis construct)
- Ingerson v. State, 508 S.W.3d 703 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016) (mem. op.) (court of appeals reversed for insufficiency)