Zuniga v. State, 551 S.W.3d 729

Appellant Ricardo Zuniga was convicted of capital murder (two deaths) and two counts of engaging in organized criminal activity (EOCA) for committing the murders "as a member of a criminal street gang" (Barrio Aztecas).
Eyewitnesses placed Zuniga at a group assault at the A & M Bar, saw him retrieve a gun and heard two shots; multiple witnesses later identified him and co-participants (some identified as Barrio Azteca members).
Law enforcement testimony and classification records showed Zuniga had been identified and classified as a Barrio Azteca member; the A & M Bar was known as a gang hangout and the victims were rival gang members.
The court of appeals vacated the two EOCA convictions, reasoning the evidence did not show Zuniga committed the murders with intent "to establish, maintain, or participate as a member of a criminal street gang."
The State sought review; the Court of Criminal Appeals granted review to decide whether the evidence was legally sufficient under a hypothetically correct jury charge.

Issue	State's Argument	Zuniga's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Zuniga committed the predicate murders "as a member of a criminal street gang" under Tex. Penal Code §71.02(a)	The proper jury charge requires proof only that the defendant committed the offense "as a member of a criminal street gang" (no separate intent-to-join/maintain element); the State argued the evidence (gang membership, coordinated group attack, venue, rival status of victims) showed a nexus between the crime and gang role	Court of appeals insisted the statute required proof of intent to establish/maintain/participate as a gang member (or otherwise required motive tied to gang activity), and held evidence insufficient to show murders were committed because of gang membership	The CCA reversed the court of appeals: the hypothetically correct charge requires proof the defendant acted in the role/capacity/function of a gang member when committing the offense; the evidence (membership, co-participants, location, rival status, coordinated attack) was sufficient to allow a rational juror to find the element and reinstate EOCA convictions

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
Villa v. State, 514 S.W.3d 227 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (statutory reading and sufficiency analysis for EOCA "as a member" language)
Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (use of hypothetically correct jury charge in sufficiency review)
Hart v. State, 89 S.W.3d 61 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (distinguished—addressed criminal combination theory)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences)
Wise v. State, 364 S.W.3d 900 (review defers to factfinder; State need not disprove all alternative hypotheses)
Yazdchi v. State, 428 S.W.3d 831 (statutory interpretation principles: literal text and grammar)