Tymothy Patrick Pfeiffer v. State
05-16-00686-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 21, 2017Background
- Appellant Tymothy Patrick Pfeiffer was convicted by a jury of capital murder for the fatal shooting of Juan Rodriguez during an alleged robbery; conviction affirmed by the Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas).
- Rodriguez was shot once in the chest on August 1, 2015, identified Pfeiffer to a bystander before dying, and was missing his wallet and cell phone after the shooting; $12,000 cash and narcotics remained in his apartment.
- Text messages from Pfeiffer the day before show he sought a gun (“strap”) and said obtaining the gun would lead to “good money.”
- Cell‑phone location data placed Pfeiffer’s and Rodriguez’s phones together at multiple locations after the shooting; Anthony Murphy (with Pfeiffer at arrest) attempted to use Rodriguez’s debit card and was shown on ATM/7‑Eleven surveillance; Murphy tried to pawn a wallet and sold Rodriguez’s phone.
- Police intercepted a jail call between Pfeiffer and his brother where they spoke in a syllable‑altered form of English; Detective Hornsby testified he decoded it (described as Pig Latin with added “ag” syllables) to show appellant admitted presence and denied a weapon was found.
- Trial court admitted Hornsby’s translation over objection; appellate issues raised were legal sufficiency of the evidence and admissibility/qualification for translating the coded jail call.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Pfeiffer's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency: whether evidence supports capital murder (murder in course of robbery) | Texts and conduct show intent to obtain gun and money; victim ID’d Pfeiffer as shooter; property taken; accomplice used victim’s debit card/cell phone — supports robbery element and intent to kill (deadly weapon) | Evidence insufficient to show intent to rob at time of killing and insufficient proof murder occurred during a robbery; failure to take apartment cash undermines robbery theory | Affirmed: evidence sufficient. Intent to kill inferred from deadly‑weapon use; circumstantial evidence and post‑offense acts support robbery contemporaneous with murder |
| Admissibility of translation of coded jail call | Hornsby testified decoding required no specialized training; he perceived the pattern (adding “ag” before vowels) and translated by removing added syllables — permissible lay opinion based on perception | Hornsby was unqualified to translate a private coded language; State failed to show familiarity or expert qualification | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion. Translation was of altered English (not a private language) and did not require expert skill, so lay testimony admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (instructs review standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (jury as factfinder; review in light most favorable to verdict)
- Sheffield v. State, 189 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (robbery intent formed before or contemporaneous with murder suffices for murder‑during‑robbery)
- Godsey v. State, 719 S.W.2d 578 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (use of deadly weapon permits inference of intent to kill)
- Adanandus v. State, 866 S.W.2d 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (deadly‑weapon inferences on intent)
- Osbourn v. State, 92 S.W.3d 531 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (when lay opinion testimony is permissible without expert qualification)
- Flanagan v. State, 675 S.W.2d 734 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (discusses intent in deadly‑weapon cases)