Patrick Kirk Pitzer v. State
10-14-00255-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 22, 2015Background
- Appellant Patrick Kirk Pitzer was convicted of arson with intent to damage a habitation in Brazos County, Texas.
- Pitzer challenged the conviction on sufficiency of the evidence, admission of extraneous acts without proper notice, and denial of a challenge for cause to juror bias.
- The jury convicted Pitzer; the trial court overruled defense objections on juror bias and extraneous-acts notice.
- Evidence included statements by Oldham about Pitzer’s threats and intent to burn the house, physical evidence of accelerants, and testimony from Wedel about Pitzer’s admission and threats.
- The court conducted a standard sufficiency review and held that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, supports identity and arson elements.
- The court affirmed the judgment, overruling all three issues raised by Pitzer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to identify arsonist | Pitzer argues identity not established beyond reasonable doubt. | Pitzer contends insufficient linkage between actions and arson. | Evidence sufficient to identify Pitzer as arsonist |
| Notice for extraneous-acts evidence | Pitzer argues improper untimely notice violated Rule 404(b). | State contends notice was timely and no harm shown. | No reversible error; notice deemed adequate and no harm shown |
| Juror bias denial | Pitzer contends denial of challenge for cause forced extra peremptory strike. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; juror could be fair and impartial. | No abuse of discretion; prejudice not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Russeau v. State, 171 S.W.3d 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion standard for challenges for cause)
- Banda v. State, 890 S.W.2d 42 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (deference to trial judge on venireman demeanor)
- Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (bias or prejudice must impair ability to judge credibility)
- Mooney v. State, 817 S.W.2d 693 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (can set aside bias and abide by oath; deference to trial court)
- Hernandez v. State, 176 S.W.3d 821 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (Rule 404(b) notice purpose to prevent surprise)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1979) (sufficiency standard—proof beyond reasonable doubt)
- Pesce v. State, 404 B guidance (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (note: see Hernandez on notice and harm analysis)
- Jones v. State, 982 S.W.2d 386 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (skepticism of accomplice witnesses not per se disqualifying)