Nisbett, Rex Allen, 552 S.W.3d 244

Two consolidated appeals: Rex Allen Nisbett and George Delacruz were each convicted of murder though neither victim’s body nor a murder weapon was recovered; the Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed sufficiency of the evidence.
Nisbett: wife Vicki disappeared after an argument on Dec. 14, 1991; Vicki never seen or heard from again. Investigators found Vicki’s blood in the apartment (including a bloody handprint matching Nisbett), an out-of-sequence forged check signed by Nisbett, suspicious behavior by Nisbett, and an unusually clean apartment; court of appeals reversed and rendered acquittal for insufficiency.
Delacruz: wife Julie disappeared Mar. 26, 2010; cellphone and credit-card data, geolocation, and social-media/texts showed Delacruz had possession of Julie’s phone and used her card; a freshly dug hole, ash and burned clothing, and cadaver-dog alerts were found in his backyard; the court of appeals affirmed conviction.
The state relied on circumstantial proof to establish (1) that each victim was dead despite no body recovered, (2) each defendant’s connection to the disappearance, and (3) the requisite culpable mental state for murder.
The CCA held the evidence legally sufficient in both cases, reversed the court of appeals’ acquittal in Nisbett, and affirmed Delacruz’s conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency to prove death without a body	Cumulative circumstantial evidence (no activity, plans unfulfilled, physical evidence) shows victim is dead	State failed to prove death; absence of a body permits reasonable doubt	Evidence sufficient to prove death in both cases; body not required if circumstantial proof is convincing
Proof of causation / manner of death	State need not prove exact manner; cumulative evidence can show another caused death	Lack of identified fatal act or murder weapon defeats causation element	Manner need not be identified; circumstantial proof linking defendants to disappearance satisfied causation inference
Proof of defendant identity and involvement	Motive, opportunity, inconsistent statements, physical/electronic evidence (blood/handprint, phone/credit use, dug hole/ash) tie each defendant to disappearance	Evidence is speculative and does not independently prove homicide or the defendant’s culpability beyond reasonable doubt	Cumulative circumstantial evidence sufficiently connected each defendant to the victims’ disappearances
Proof of culpable mental state for murder	Intent/knowledge inferred from motive, prior threats, acts to conceal, extent of injuries, and deceptive conduct	There is insufficient proof of intent or knowingly causing death; at most suspicious behavior	Jury could reasonably infer requisite mental state from motive, prior threats, violent acts, and concealment efforts

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency review: evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence can be as probative as direct evidence)
Carrizales v. State, 414 S.W.3d 737 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (treats corpus delicti concepts within Jackson sufficiency framework)
McDuff v. State, 939 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (corpus delicti of murder can be proved without a body; cumulative circumstantial evidence evaluated)
Ramos v. State, 407 S.W.3d 265 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (cumulative force of incriminating circumstances may support conviction)