Randall Lee Samford v. State, 11-15-00309-CR

Background

Defendant Randall Lee Samford was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault–family violence with a deadly weapon (first-degree felony) and sentenced to 15 years and a $10,000 fine. Appeal followed contesting sufficiency of evidence, evidentiary rulings, and portions of closing argument.
Incident: on May 12, 2014, a domestic dispute in a shared residence escalated; victim Louanna Green suffered severe head, elbow, and leg fractures and profuse bleeding; a bloodied shovel was observed in the hallway.
Key testimony/evidence: sister Cienna testified she saw Samford strike Louanna about nine times with a shovel (though some testimony suggested imperfect vision); the 9‑1‑1 recording contained an admission by Samford that he hit Louanna; investigator observed blood on Samford’s hands and on a shovel; medical records and photographs of injuries were introduced.
Samford testified he did not assault Louanna, claimed his 9‑1‑1 admission was a panicked false statement, and suggested any blood on him could have been from touching a bloody object.
Trial court admitted photographs of the bloodied shovel and the victim’s injuries over Samford’s Rule 403 objections; defense objected to portions of the prosecutor’s guilt and punishment closing arguments but did not contemporaneously object to some remarks.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Samford)	Held
1. Sufficiency of the evidence to prove Samford knowingly/intentionally struck the victim and that blood on shovel belonged to victim	Evidence (Cienna’s testimony, 9‑1‑1 admission, investigator’s observations, photograph of bloodied shovel, medical records) supports conviction; inferences support finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt	Insufficient: no direct proof Samford struck victim; no blood testing linking shovel blood to victim; witnesses’ viewing was imperfect	Affirmed: viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict, a rational juror could find elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt (Jackson standard).
2. Admissibility of photograph of bloodied shovel (Rule 403)	Photograph is highly probative to show use of a deadly weapon and is needed to prove element of the offense	Photographs are prejudicial and cumulative given testimony, medical records, victim’s scars, and other evidence	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; probative value outweighed any unfair prejudice.
3. Admissibility of photographs of victim’s injuries (Rule 403)	Photographs are probative of serious bodily injury and the injury’s quality at time inflicted	Photographs are unduly prejudicial and cumulative	Affirmed: photographs admissible; Rule 403 factors favored admission.
4. Prosecutor’s guilt‑phase closing argument (alleged burden‑shifting and inflammatory rhetoric)	Argument properly summarized evidence and urged credibility determinations	Argument impermissibly shifted burden and inflamed jury; defense objected to some comments but not contemporaneously to others	Affirmed: error not preserved for many complained‑of remarks because timely objection lacking; no reversible error.
5. Prosecutor’s punishment‑phase remark (arguing victim could have been killed)	Comment was a reasonable deduction from the evidence of the severity of injuries and potential lethality	Remark was outside the record	Affirmed: remark was a permissible, reasonable deduction from testimony about severe injuries and EMS response.

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App.) (application of Jackson/Brooks sufficiency review)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App.) (circumstantial evidence probative as direct evidence)
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App.) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings and Rule 403 review)
Mozon v. State, 991 S.W.2d 841 (Tex. Crim. App.) (deference to trial court within zone of reasonable disagreement on admissibility)