Muhammed v. State
331 S.W.3d 187
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Muhammed was convicted of breach of computer security under Texas Penal Code § 33.02; punishment 180 days confinement in Harris County Jail, probated for two years.
- Saravia, a UH engineering student, experienced multiple UH account intrusions beginning in 2004, including password changes and deletion of work.
- Evidence linked Muhammed to the intrusions: IT data placed her at a Lone Star College computer lab where UH sites were accessed; IP addresses traced to UH and LSC.
- UH IT and LSC police observed Muhammed using a computer lab computer to access UH student accounts for about forty minutes, including Saravia's, with browsing history later deleted.
- New-trial evidence from Uche Okafor questioned the authenticity of the State’s screen shots and suggested potential timing inconsistencies, leading to a denied motion for new trial.
- Appellant challenged four issues on appeal and we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge requirement for both access and consent | Muhammed argues lack of proof she knew consent was absent | State contends knowledge applies to both elements | Sufficient evidence; knowledge required for both elements; conviction affirmed |
| Overbreadth mootness | If knowledge not required for consent, statute is overbroad | Knowledge applies to both elements, avoiding overbreadth | Issue deemed moot; not reached on appeal |
| Voir dire on beyond a reasonable doubt | Trial court’s explanation could taint presumption of innocence | No objection preserved error | No preserved error; issue overruled |
| Motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence | New evidence warranted overturning conviction | Briefing inadequate; waiver | Waived due to inadequate briefing; issue overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (legal-sufficiency standard governs sufficiency review)
- Blue v. State, 41 S.W.3d 129 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (voir dire error not requiring objection (plurality))
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (hypothetically correct jury charge and sufficiency standards)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (circumstantial evidence sufficient to prove guilt)