Kelly Kita Sheffield v. State
03-14-00353-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 28, 2015Background
- Appellant Kelly Kita Sheffield was indicted for tampering with physical evidence (acquitted), evading arrest or detention with a vehicle (convicted), and child endangerment (convicted) for events on March 17, 2011.
- CPS investigator Gina Bushey, accompanied by Sgt. David Cantu (NBPD), went to serve a court order to remove Appellant’s infant due to substantiated safety concerns; Appellant left the apartment with the infant in a rear-facing car seat in the vehicle.
- Bushey and CPS followed in a civilian car; Sgt. Cantu followed in a white pickup (unmarked, with emergency lights and siren) and activated his lights/siren during the pursuit. Appellant drove away, made evasive maneuvers (including a U-turn in a gravel lot), and did not stop immediately despite police attempts to pull her over.
- Video evidence showed Cantu directly behind Appellant with lights/siren activated; Appellant stopped only after a second marked patrol vehicle arrived and ordered her to stop via loudspeaker.
- After stopping, officers observed the infant secured in a car seat and marijuana residue/ seeds in Appellant’s vehicle and mouth; Appellant was arrested. At trial the jury convicted on evading with a vehicle and child endangering; sentence was two years in state jail, suspended, with probation and fines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Sheffield) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was legally sufficient to prove Appellant knew Sgt. Cantu was a peace officer when she fled in a vehicle | Jury could infer knowledge from: prior attempts by CPS to serve a removal order; Appellant driving from the apartment after those attempts; Cantu following immediately with lights/siren activated; face-to-face encounter in the gravel lot; other motorists pulled over | Cantu drove an unmarked pickup and wore casual attire; Appellant claimed she did not recognize the truck as an emergency vehicle, so knowledge was lacking | Conviction for evading affirmed; evidence held legally sufficient to support a finding Appellant knew Cantu was a peace officer |
| Whether evidence was legally sufficient to prove child endangerment by placing the infant in imminent danger during the evasion | Active vehicular evasion with a 10-month-old in the car creates imminent danger; erratic driving, U-turns, high-speed pursuit, exposure to marijuana in vehicle constitute imminence | Argues proof fails because, if she lacked knowledge that Cantu was a peace officer, the predicate for dangerous evasion is undermined | Conviction for child endangering affirmed; evidence held legally sufficient given inherent danger of vehicular evasion with an infant aboard |
Key Cases Cited
- Adelman v. State, 828 S.W.2d 418 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (deference to jury credibility determinations)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (legal-sufficiency review standard)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (cumulative-evidence sufficiency principles)
- Manrique v. State, 994 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (intent may be inferred from circumstances)
- Hobbs v. State, 175 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (evading is a continuous crime)