Ty Kealoha Eoff AKA Ty Kegloha Eoff v. State
02-16-00064-CR
Tex. App.Dec 1, 2016Background
- At ~3:45 p.m., homeowner Mark Thome was awakened by loud bangs; he found his back door forced open and fired a gun as two men (Nathan Tealer and Ty Eoff) were at the doorway; Tealer was shot and later died.
- Tealer entered the house; Eoff was seen immediately behind Tealer but did not enter the house; both had scaled a locked backyard fence and the back door showed force consistent with kicking in.
- After fleeing, Eoff approached nearby homeowners, declined police assistance, called his mother, hid in a garage floor, and later lied to police about knowing Tealer.
- Phone records and witness testimony placed Eoff and Tealer together shortly before the incident and established they were acquaintances/friends.
- A grand jury indicted Eoff for burglary of a habitation; the jury was instructed on both principal liability and the law of parties; jury convicted and assessed 25 years’ confinement; Eoff appealed claiming insufficient evidence and charge error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Eoff) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict (party/principal) | Evidence supports conviction as a party: scaled locked fence, forced entry, Eoff directly behind Tealer, evasive conduct, communications tying them together | Eoff did not enter the house (so not a principal) and there is no proof he solicited, encouraged, directed, aided, or attempted to aid Tealer | Affirmed: evidence sufficient to convict Eoff as a party to burglary under circumstantial inferences and conduct before/during/after the offense |
| Trial court’s jury instruction on law of parties | Court properly instructed on parties because evidence supported party liability; party instruction appropriate when principal evidence is insufficient | Charging under law of parties was error because State did not prove Eoff’s culpable participation | Affirmed: no error — court may instruct on parties when evidence supports it and should give such an instruction if principal liability is lacking |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (due-process sufficiency standard for criminal convictions)
- Murray v. State, 457 S.W.3d 446 (Tex. Crim. App.) (deference to jury in resolving conflicts and drawing inferences)
- Salinas v. State, 163 S.W.3d 734 (Tex. Crim. App.) (party liability may be shown by conduct before, during, after offense and common design)
- Thompson v. State, 697 S.W.2d 413 (Tex. Crim. App.) (mere presence or flight insufficient alone but may support party liability with other incriminating evidence)
- Powell v. State, 194 S.W.3d 503 (Tex. Crim. App.) (circumstantial evidence may establish party status)
- Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. Crim. App.) (trial court may instruct on law of parties if evidence supports it)
- McCuin v. State, 505 S.W.2d 827 (Tex. Crim. App.) (when principal evidence is insufficient, party instruction should be given)