Michael Jerome Clark v. State
14-15-00840-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 11, 2016Background
- On June 17, 2011, gas-station employees Sujesh Mahajan and Syed Hussain were confronted while Mahajan carried a bank deposit in a fast-food bag; Hussain was shot and later died.
- A bystander saw a struggle and a man fire multiple shots; another witness saw a fleeing man discard a two-piece head covering (a "stocking cap").
- Police recovered shell casings and the stocking cap; surveillance video showed a man in a white shirt waiting in bushes, approaching the employees, struggling, and then fleeing.
- DNA testing of material from the recovered stocking cap produced a match to Michael Jerome Clark with extremely low random-match probabilities for unrelated African Americans.
- Appellant presented testimony that he donated clothing that year and lived near the station; no eyewitness identified appellant in person or from a photo array.
- A jury convicted appellant of capital murder (robbery-motivated killing); because the State did not seek death, appellant received automatic life without parole.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of identity evidence to support capital murder conviction | Clark: eyewitnesses only gave general descriptions; DNA could reflect prior donation of cap; evidence at most creates suspicion | State: combined eyewitness descriptions, proximity/habit evidence, and DNA match (astronomical odds) sufficiently identify Clark as the perpetrator | Affirmed: cumulative evidence—including DNA—was sufficient for a rational juror to find Clark guilty beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Gear v. State, 340 S.W.3d 743 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Sharp v. State, 707 S.W.2d 611 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (factfinder may believe or disbelieve any testimony)
- Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (appellate court may not substitute its judgment for jury on credibility/weight)
- Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (appellate duty to ensure evidence supports conviction)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (cumulative force of circumstances can sustain conviction)