Larry Michael Maples v. State
12-14-00337-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 31, 2015Background
- Defendant Larry Maples was indicted for capital murder for the March 24, 2013 killing of Heather Maples during the commission of a burglary of Moises Clemente’s habitation.
- Prosecutor's theory: Maples drove to Clemente’s rural home at night, parked 0.3 miles away, entered through an unlocked door carrying a Colt .45, shot Clemente in the abdomen, then shot Heather multiple times, returned, placed a pillow over her face and shot her in the head.
- After the killing Maples made admissions to his sister and father and called 911, stating he had killed Heather.
- Trial evidence included eyewitness testimony, Maples’s statements, and DNA testing showing Clemente’s DNA on/in the victim; Clemente offered an explanation for the DNA (shared sex toy), and a forensic scientist testified the explanation was possible though unlikely.
- Maples moved for directed verdict and requested a perjury instruction regarding Clemente’s testimony; the trial court denied both and the jury convicted Maples of capital murder.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Maples) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support capital murder (murder during burglary) | Evidence (entry without consent, armed entry, shot Clemente then Heather, admissions) supports conviction beyond a reasonable doubt | Evidence insufficient to prove element that death occurred in course of burglary; directed verdict should have been granted | The court held the evidence was sufficient; denial of directed verdict was correct |
| Trial court denial of directed verdict (joined to sufficiency) | Denial proper because, viewing evidence in State's favor, any rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt | Directed verdict should have been granted for insufficiency | Denial affirmed as part of sufficiency analysis |
| Denial of requested perjury instruction concerning Clemente’s testimony | No Texas authority entitles Maples to the requested perjury instruction; jury charge adequately addressed credibility; no showing State knowingly used false testimony or that any error was material | Trial court erred by refusing to instruct jury on perjury of Clemente’s testimony | Denial affirmed: no showing of perjured testimony that affected verdict; any error would be harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (adopts Jackson standard for sufficiency review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for determining sufficiency of evidence)
- McDuff v. State, 939 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (overruling directed verdict is an attack on sufficiency)
- York v. State, 342 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (standards for judge considering directed verdict when jury is factfinder)
- Losada v. State, 721 S.W.2d 305 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (State may not use perjured testimony to obtain conviction)
- Ex parte Castellano, 863 S.W.2d 476 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (State’s knowing use of perjured testimony violates due process)
- Ramirez v. State, 96 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002) (standard for materiality and harmlessness where alleged perjured testimony used)
- Tucker v. State, 15 S.W.3d 229 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000) (disagreement in testimony does not equal perjury)