Jacob Jordann Bright v. State, 07-15-00118-CR

Appellant Bright was indicted for capital murder under Tex. Penal Code § 19.03(a)(2); death penalty waived by State.
Case proceeded to jury trial; jury found Bright guilty; he was sentenced to life without parole.
Indictment alleged the murder occurred in the course of robbery; State relied on multiple identity and circumstantial evidence.
Evidence included surveillance footage, cell records, eyewitness Patterson, and text messages from Bright’s phone—subject to defense objection.
The court admitted text messages with Shawn over Rule 403 objections; defense challenged jury instructions on capital murder and murder.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Legal sufficiency of the evidence	Bright argues insufficiency to prove capital murder beyond reasonable doubt.	State contends sufficient evidence from multiple sources supports guilt.	No, insufficiency shown; reversal required.
Jury-charge errors defining capital murder and murder	Bright contends erroneous definitions allowed an improper basis for capital murder.	State asserts definitions were correct and adequately framed the offenses.	Yes, reversible error due to flawed definitions and omissions of felony murder.
Exclusion of text messages under Rule 403	Bright argues Shawn texts were unfairly prejudicial and unduly inflammatory.	State maintains texts had probative value and limited prejudicial impact.	Yes, erroneous admission requiring reversal.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for legal sufficiency review)
Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) ( Almanza factors for harm review)
Threadgill v. State, 146 S.W.3d 654 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (capital murder vs. felony murder—specific intent requirement)
Nava v. State, 415 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (Almanza harm analysis factors and prejudice standard)
Riles v. State, 595 S.W.2d 858 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (course-of-robbery nexus standard for capital murder)