Sharon Diane Finley v. State
06-17-00008-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 18, 2017Background
- Defendant Sharon Diane Finley was convicted by a McLennan County jury of cruelty to a non‑livestock animal (dog) and sentenced to eight years; conviction included an affirmative deadly‑weapon finding.
- Facts: Finley picked up two loose huskies from a driveway, later returned one (Thor) dead with a puncture‑type wound; witnesses observed blood and dog hair in Finley’s car and a knife and ice pick in the vehicle.
- Competing theories: State argued Thor was stabbed/shot while in Finley’s custody; Finley testified she was rescuing the dogs, that one was later struck by a car, and she did not kill the dog.
- Trial evidence included lay opinion testimony from neighbors and a deputy that the wound was a puncture likely from a sharp object (knife/ice pick) and photographs of the dog and Finley’s bloody clothing/interior of her car.
- Post‑trial, on appeal Finley raised four points: (1) legal insufficiency of evidence to support guilt, (2) jury charge and prosecutor argument expanded the indictment, (3) erroneous admission of lay opinion testimony, and (4) insufficiency of evidence for the deadly‑weapon finding.
- Court of Appeals: affirmed guilt (except deadly‑weapon finding), rejected charge and evidence objections, but held deadly‑weapon finding unsupported where the only victim was a nonhuman and remanded for a new punishment hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Finley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Legal sufficiency of evidence to support cruelty conviction | Evidence shows Finley took the dogs, Thor was returned dead with a puncture wound, knife/ice pick found in her car; reasonable jurors could infer she stabbed/killed the dog | Thor died from being hit by a car while in Finley’s custody; State failed to prove what killed the dog | Evidence sufficient to support conviction for cruelty (jury could disbelieve Finley and infer stabbing/sharp‑object wound) |
| 2. Whether jury charge/prosecutor expanded the indictment by including concurrent‑causation language (Penal Code §6.04(a)) | Section 6.04(a) instruction was appropriate because Finley presented evidence of a concurrent cause (vehicle strike) | Instruction allowed conviction on unpled theory (combination/composite cause) and thus expanded the indictment | No error — inclusion of §6.04(a) was proper given evidence of a possible concurrent cause; Otto distinguished |
| 3. Admissibility of lay witness opinion on wound cause under Tex. R. Evid. 701 | Lay witnesses had perception, experience/training, and their opinions were helpful to jury in determining cause | Lay opinion testimony was improper (impermissible expert opinion) | No abuse of discretion: witnesses’ opinions were rationally based on perceptions and helpful, so admissible under Rule 701 |
| 4. Sufficiency of evidence supporting deadly‑weapon finding | Indictment alleged use/exhibition of deadly weapon (gun/knife/ice pick/unknown sharp object) and jury found it | Evidence did not support elevating the offense because alleged deadly weapon was used only against a nonhuman | Deadly‑weapon finding deleted: under controlling authority a deadly‑weapon finding cannot be supported when the sole victim is a nonhuman; remand for new punishment hearing under the unenhanced range |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard for reviewing legal sufficiency under Jackson and Brooks framework)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (legal‑sufficiency standard — whether any rational trier could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (definition of a hypothetically correct jury charge for sufficiency review)
- Otto v. State, 273 S.W.3d 165 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (charging language based on §6.04(a) can improperly expand indictment where no evidence of concurrent physical causes exists)
- Fairow v. State, 943 S.W.2d 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (standards for admissibility of lay‑opinion testimony under Rule 701)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (deference to jury on credibility and reasonable inferences)
- Abdnor v. State, 871 S.W.2d 726 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (two‑step Almanza analysis for jury‑charge error)