Fred Earl Ingerson, III v. State

703 INGERSON, III, Appellant Fred Earl

v. Texas, STATE State 02-11-00311-CR

NO. Texas, Appeals

Court

Fort Worth.

DELIVERED: October

Discretionary Review Granted

April Worth, TX, Richards, L. Fort

David Appellant.

n Christian, Attorney; T. District Robert Chalifoux, District Attor- Megan Assistant TX, Granbury, ney County, for Hood State. Testimony MEIER,

PANEL: DAUPHINOT and III.Trial JJ.19 The forty-six State in called witnesses chief, presentation

its its case and the defense called seven witnesses. The State called four rebuttal witnesses. will We MEMORANDUM OPINION1 briefly identify testimony of each wit- ness in thoroughly order to consider the MEIER, BILL JUSTICE sufficiency-of-the-evidenee question raised I. Introduction by Ingerson point. in his first appellant Inger- A found Fred Earl jury State’s Witness Kenneth Barnes: son, capital guilty III the offense Barnes, The witness was first Kenneth punishment murder assessed his who testified that he is an employee parole life without in the Institutional Divi- City Granbury’s IT Department and Department sion of of Criminal the Texas Department said that his duties in the IT ac- Justice. The trial court sentenced him recovering included video from sur- data In cordingly. points, Ingerson argues four veillance systems. Barnes support that the evidence is insufficient to gathered video from the Little Miracles verdict; jury’s that the trial court erred Learning Creative Center’s surveillance by allowing the State to introduce extrane- system 30,2008, on June and that this data evidence; ous-offense and that trial constituted State’s Exhibit 1. court to intro- allowing erred him Barnes, the video Ex- contained person may duce evidence “another hibit 1 captured spanning video from 11:30 killings.” have had a motive to commit the p.m. on June 27 12:30 a.m. on June 28. judgment will We reverse and render stand, on the While Barnes did not men- acquittal. tion Ingerson’s name. Shelly Roop: Background

II. The testify Shelly second witness to was On June Robyn Richter and Roop. Roop averred that she was the for- Shawna Ferris were found dead the mer owner of the Little Miracles Creative parking Miyako Japanese lot of the Res- Learning Center and testified to the relia- in Granbury, County, taurant Hood Texas. bility daycare’s system. video She They were discovered in the front seats also did Ingerson. not mention Envoy—Richter GMC the driver seat State’s Witness Russell Grizzard: passenger and Ferris in the seat. Each Witness number three Russell Griz- single gunshot had suffered a wound zard, who testified that he is a detective passen- head and had been shot from the Granbury with the Department. Police ger side of the vehicle. Grizzard averred that first he was the Granbury Department Police detective to arrive the scene who took Rangers performed the Texas an extensive photographs of the bodies. He said investigation of these murders. It made an initial search of the scene and until March of 2010 that law enforcement that he for but no looked found shell cas- ings. obtained warrant for arrest. stayed Grizzard at the crime scene McCoy origi- 19. Justice was a member of the App. 1. See Tex. R. P. 47.4. panel nal but has retired in the interim. Ingerson initially investigation team Grizzard testified the crime scene

until told him that he left opened, believed he had After the car Griz- arrived. Miyako p.m. at about 10:50 to 11:00 found Richter’s cell- zard averred Grizzard, Friday. out- Grizzard said that cor- phone. According to the last rected timeframe when he was told going cellphone call shown people until statements from other who p.m. at 11:52 and lasted 11:53 about made having at the bar said that it was p.m., said he believed were which Grizzard p.m. around 11:30 and that con- that the time of death was after showed that that was the more time p.m. 11:53 ceded correct departure, saying every- of his he left with investiga- that a fellow Grizzard averred one else when the bar closed. Grizzard tor, “ev- Haught, Richie had interviewed testified that the Little Miracles’s surveil- Miyako’s at the bar at eryone was [who] Inger- video a car to lance showed similar the murders dis- night the before” were by drive its location within minutes son’s Grizzard, According to based on covered. outgoing the call on after last Richter’s it Ingerson, interview with Haught’s initial cellphone. investigators “needed was determined Later, home, Ingerson’s while at Griz- [Ingerson] to talk to a second time.” Griz- Briley per- Ranger Dan- zard said he and obtained zard that he and Texas home, Ingerson’s weap- to search car. No Briley but mission ny went to They were found in car. also not there. Grizzard said ons the asked there, however, in Briley spoke weapons to to look at the home. that while Grizzard, By weapons one of the Ingerson by telephone. Grizzard’s ac- count, .44 Ingerson agreed go Special to the there was a Smith Wesson & Gran- although inter- revolver. Grizzard said bury Department Police and was looking Special for a Colt or a Saturday, .38 viewed Colt, Inger- gun no such was found at .357 interview, During this said that Grizzard son’s home. wearing what he was he asked knew he was Miyoka night on the before Grizzard testified while he was Special Mag- for or .357 looking testi- a Colt .38 the bodies were discovered. Grizzard searching num as the Ingerson gave permission him revolver he was fied of an examination weapon murder because pants retrieve the he said he had worn this, projectile in the back from a found local cleaners. Based Griz- found. Ac- where the bodies were Haught called the of vehicle zard said owner Grizzard, cleaners, cording to he had been told this agreed Inger- who retrieve Story.2 by Calvin pants. son’s Story testi- report. twelfth witness to projectile 2. The caliber of the was confirmed report by Story expert fy. written forensic scientist Calvin is the The State concedes that Story, July S. dated and admit- identify Jr. attempting mur- upon in relied As ted as State’s Exhibit 56. is further dis- weapon projectile found at der from bullet below, report prepared by Story, cussed Contrary murder to the State's scene. forensic scientist for the Firearms Section repeated the never-located references that Department Safety in Aus- the Texas tin, Public weapon was a Colt and never-found murder by Story describes an examination of the controlling Special, expert nev- the State’s .38 projectile bullet found in the back of the En- that fired the er narrowed caliber voy investigators. vehicle crime scene projectile found at the crime scene down projectile depicted found and where it was Story's report con- Special. Instead Colt .38 33, 34, 35, Story Exhibits and 36. State's part cluded that: projectile referenced that as item 11 his during testified that the time been identified. Grizzard also said that Grizzard evidence, Story biological examine none of asked the two victims’ materi- Story a Special hair, blood, sent .38 caliber Colt model al—including or DNA—were possession revolver that was Cobra from of Ingerson’s recovered shoes or Granbury police time tested, clothing investigators includ- account, By this examination. Grizzard’s ing pants Ingerson voluntarily Hill, from gun was obtained David who investigators to allowed retrieve D.W.I., was arrested for a cleaners. put police in the seized evidence and during also testified that Grizzard department’s safekeeping. Story concluded investigation “information that received report identify in his that he was unable to couple people there were a [who] made having eliminate the Cobra revolver as they the remark” that had killed the two the at the of fired bullet found scene the Specifically, women. said that one Grizzard murders.3 person make “for sure did a remark that Ingerson report- testified that Grizzard girls” he per- killed the and that another ed that he had talked with Richter and son investigators had informed the Ferris after he came out of the restaurant murders to “Aryan were related the Cir- Friday, Grizzard said that his 27. cle” but that the informant also said that investigation Inger- confirmed this in that gang, the murders involved another “Tan- palm prints fingerprints son’s and were go Blast.” Grizzard also said that he re- However, found the vehicle.4 Grizzard Aryan ceived information that the Brother- although testified there an exten- hood had the murders. committed Grizzard investigation by investigators taking sive regard- said that he pursue did not a lead DNA, samples hair and fiber and there ing Aryan the Circle informa- because the biological was no evidence collected tion he obtained was that the women were crime scene or at home that shotgun killed a he and knew definite- him by connected forensic evidence to the ly they were not. Grizzard said palm prints murders aside from the and Tibbs, Christopher fingerprints. the individual who say Grizzard did that investi- women, gators palm prints claimed have killed the two found several other and fingerprints investigated vehicle that have never and was determined (Auto) Analysis Interpretation Super Results of and revolvers and a .38 caliber car- bullet, opinion 1. is our It that this item tridge” Story’s possible report, list of capable was fired from a firearm of cham- expert firearms wit- identified bering firing Special, Mag- .38 and .357 Special ness also .38 caliber included a Colt num, (Auto) Super cartridge. or .38 caliber model Cobra revolver. include, possible A list firearms would to, Special but not be limited .38 and .357 below, people 4. As discussed further other Magnum Super Colt revolvers and a .38 leaving reported the bar and (Auto) pistols. Colt night, Ingerson left that was stand- Ingerson Evidence existed that had one ing by talking the side the vehicle to the pistol. time owned a Colt bobbed-hammer .38 Moreover, Ingerson’s prints two women. connection led the That State to conclude that side, found on the driver's which is consistent weapon pistol, the murder was a .38 Colt police with his statement and with the presented the State evidence to this conclu- testimony other witnesses. statements sion, and, pistol But no such was ever located Forensic evidence that the two demonstrates accordingly, was not evidence. passenger victims were from the side of shot Thus, already identified addition the vehicle. Special Magnum list of “.38 Colt .357 Elrod said that that Tibbs did not know relevant details written. he knew that that he lied the murders and had the check was written as such at the time in the “to about his involvement murders he like it” but and that “didn’t that be- tough people.” look front of some other money, he cause needed took and cashed the check.6 But Elrod averred that Michael Mathew: payment the check was the for the two Mathew, who testified that he Michael guns. Elrod also how he described later sixty at the time of trial years old explaining signed an affidavit Indiana, Kingman, resident was the purchase check was fact for fourth Mathew testified that witness. guns. copy up A the affidavit makes in a 1999 transaction in was involved which remaining portion of State’s Exhibit 17. Ingerson purchased guns gun from deal- Elrod that State’s also testified Exhibits er named James Elrod.5 Mathew said pictures and 20 are that accurately guns delivered two at the depict type that he sold check, same time that he took a which Ingerson. Special described a Elrod .38 account, company on a been written pistol having as “[n]ot bobbed-hammer pay for them. Mathew hammer.” he then delivered that check to guns that one of Elrod. Mathew said in- Elrod averred that he had informed he delivered was a Colt vestigators that numerous times he had that he remembered that was be- and Special the .38 pistol fired bobbed-hammer “[y]ou just many cause didn’t see little that to Ingerson. he sold He also that Colts like that at the time.” investigators he was aware had re- Elrod: Witness James State’s slugs from place where he trieved had El- James Elrod was the fifth witness. gun. shot the a .38 Special

rod confirmed that he sold State’s Witness Darrel W. Stonebraker: gun Ingerson bobbed-hammer in Stonebraker, Darrel W. who testified through bought He said Mathew. manager he is the of Darrel’s Custom Special revolver at Colt .38 Darrel’s Firearms, was witness number six. Stoneb- Guns, El- gun shop During a in Indiana. raker said that he the .38 sold Colt stand, Detec- rod’s time the State intro- Special tive revolver to Elrod. Stonebraker Part of duced State’s Exhibit 17. State’s identified 62 as a Colt State’s Exhibit ad- photocopy Exhibit a 17 contained into vertisement was admitted pay for evi- Ingerson check used jury for guns. two Elrod described how dence.7 Stonebraker did know and identify on the “Door” Ingerson. check’s memo line the word could Investigators spoke Ingerson firing. picture for 5. with Sharon the revolver Below the Hutcheson, ex-wife, 8, Ingerson's July printed in- additional model numbers and pur- and learned that cludes model described as SF Colt .38 living pistol a .38 Colt while he was chased gun SF-V1 Bobbed Hammer. The to El- sold Indiana. rod and sold to later identified Special, Special as a Colt .38 Detective Serial Ingerson’s points and three contend 6. two #SV6879—a bobbed-hammer revolver. As la- it was error to admit State’s Exhibit discussed, identifying ter this evidence the .38 check, regarding the check and

bag that was marked as State’s Exhibit 30. Watson said after the bodies were Those six eventually bullets were trans- Envoy, photo- removed from the he took Story ferred to for examination. Hutson graphs of its interior. Watson identified testimony give had no to concerning Inger- 32, 33, State’s Exhibits and 36 as son other than picking up the bullets photographs projectile of a that was locat- speaking ex-wife cargo ed in the Envoy rear area of the gun about the Ingerson had left with which the bodies were found. Watson had her. the DNA the bodies of Richter and Ingerson State’s Witness Sharon Diane autopsies Ferris as a result of conducted Hutcheson: on their bodies. He said that he obtained projectile DNA evidence from the Ingerson

Sharon Diane Hutcheson was (also witness number nine. State’s Exhibit 54 She testified that she referred as Item 11) retained the Special through .38 Colt bobbed-ham- shown State’s Exhibits 33 pistol mer after moved back to 358. Watson concluded that the DNA ob- getting Texas and while they projectile di- tained from the was a DNA gave vorce. She stated she match to Ferris. having stamp grip & W photographs, only physical an S on the and as was the evi- having weapon. a hammer—was the murder dence not connected other evidence to person investigated part who was of this bullet, put bag

8. The into an evidence marked murder. previously as State’s Exhibit 54 and shown in say I testimony Ingerson, about “Can write the gave additional Watson technique According check? Let me write the residue and check.” gunshot Cardwell, said, He gunshot residue evidence. gathering “No.” pads, collected which he testified that he day testified that In- Cardwell one after stubs, pressed against been called that had office, gerson visited the mak- Richter was pants investiga- spots ing way fun of him and the he walked. from the cleaners. Watson tors retrieved That is as follows: testimony analysis gunshot do did I you want to—I want to [Prosecutor]: instead, stubs; were sent residue your direct again attention then at the Lab- analysis Austin for DPS Crime day they’re teasing each oratory. other about the checkbook and that work at the crime scene After his initial sort— Ingerson’s pants, and the examination check, wanted to write [Cardwell]: She Granbury by back to was called Watson and, know, said, you she “Let me 28, 2008, Briley August Ranger Texas said, “I that check.” And he write gunshot look for to examine and residue that, so,” something think or like don’t of the Mazda Tribute from the interior so— drove on June 27 vehicle left, she And when he [Prosecutor]: During time on the and 28. Watson’s say anything that indicated her state stand, photographs of the State introduced feelings him? of mind her Exhibits 45 the vehicle—State’s Not about him. She was [Cardwell]: Exhibits The State also introduced State’s laughing. 49, which Watson said showed the areas of the Mazda were exam- Well, you what do mean? [Prosecutor]: looking gunshot ined and swabbed fun, making poking Like fun. [Cardwell]: no evidence concern- gave residue. Watson Well, funny? what [Prosecutor]: ing Ingerson directly. Well, my she came over [Cardwell]: “Sissy” Rose Cardwell: fact because I—be- office after the was Rose “Sis- Witness number eleven left, my I had been cause sister that she sy” Cardwell. Cardwell averred there, met just got there and she tax assessor’s office with worked day, she [came] [Richter] Cardwell, she and Richter. office, just making laughing, and with Richter. family her were friends fun. friendly Richter as a Cardwell described Well, was she how? What [Prosecutor]: outgoing person that she to din- went making fun of? of the work- ner with on occasion outside on. he had How—what [Cardwell]: In- that she place. Cardwell testified saw on And what did he have [Prosecutor]: gerson at the tax office three occasions funny? that was met him. but she never She pants—khaki He had khaki Ingerson was at the office [Cardwell]: that when shorts, T- mid-thigh, a white occasion, socks she was called the area one it, I something don’t talking Ingerson. shirt where Richter was was, it tucked in. And that In- know what Cardwell said she observed just, you [Richter]. [Richter] to write a check at the was gerson was about know, say I hate to fun saw made office and that she tax assessor’s looked, nice, way because that’s his checkbook and overheard grab laughed wrong, just but—and we because she was it’s not good because imitating his walk. you If situation be in. don’t like him, don’t lead him on. Don’t—don’t Like how? [Prosecutor]: dates, accept his lunch dinner dates. Well, going I’m not [Cardwell]: stand Anything you, he offers don’t—don’t up y’all. and show him lead on.” Well, that’s not exactly [Prosecutor]: what I mean. I Well, But—but realize why you feel [Prosecutor]: gone. that—that you [Richter] like needed to tell her that? Uh-huh. [Cardwell]: guess I that’s [Cardwell]: because some- things And some of [Prosecutor]: these do, thing I always I wouldn’t her, I’m asking you you about don’t told guess being that—I [Richter] now, approve of approve didn’t whatever, big sister, figure, mother then. me, always she came I and was very I protective [Cardwell]: didn’t. tried [Richter] and way to lead that I her feel like I But important it’s for us to [Prosecutor]: go. would understand the nature this relation- ship, worry so don’t about it. Well,— [Prosecutor]: I I understand. [Cardwell]: understand. I don’t— [Cardwell]: you So I [Prosecutor]: need to tell me question—so [Prosecutor]:—my just—I saying what she was and how she was just so I understand— acting towards the defendant after he Uh-huh. [Cardwell]: say? left. did she What [Prosecutor]:—your frame of mind and nerdy, She had said he was [Cardwell]: hers, why you wouldn’t a man on lead making fun of way and she you if weren’t in him? interested walking. just— And [Richter] was joked everything, she—she about Why— [Cardwell]: just kept And, laughing. office course, way walking she was Why you that, [Prosecutor]: wouldn’t do it imitating, funny. And I have to Ms. Cardwell? laughed. I I say agree, but I didn’t sorry. I’m you Can say laughed. repeat [Cardwell]: I have that again? That it funny? [Prosecutor]: Well, funny why Because was you— [Cardwell]: see wouldn’t [Prosecutor]: why you her do did. what she lead a on— wouldn’t man Well,— [Cardwell]: you say [Prosecutor]: What did to her you weren’t [Prosecutor]:—if interested was dating how she this man in him? making fun of him [a]nd and the then just [Cardwell]:—I wouldn’t want to deal way way he looked he walked with that if I the fact did continue way and the he and that acted he was on, him might happen. lead what I nerdy after he left? don’t—I don’t know. I had told if she [Cardwell]: [Richter] you And [Prosecutor]: concerned him, wasn’t interested in not do regard? about in that [Richter] lead on. really him And she never said, much I just was, about that. say yeah. “It’s I have to I [Cardwell]:

7H you have exchange this—this conver- [Prosecutor]:—did Now [Prosecutor]: about, [Inger- with talking sations about you’re [Richter] where he day? son] into tax office and he comes also girlfriend calls a calls—she in, coming Prior to him [Cardwell]: him then flirts with look at him and you’re— that what fun of him as he then makes any time. [Prosecutor]: Or leaves—left, that? day was what anyOr time? [Cardwell]: Oh, I my goodness. want to [Cardwell]: April say probably maybe late Well, day that—did [Prosecutor]: May. you Friday? [Ingerson] see And—now, Okay. I want to [Prosecutor]: I saw him in the office. [Cardwell]: about, you you any inter- ask have Okay. And that’s where [Prosecutor]: [Ingerson] the action her about might I—I think I I was confused and day that she died? you. episode have This confused just than what I told Other [Cardwell]: you [Ingerson] com- described about talking about? you, you’re is that what calling you ing and her over and [Prosecutor]: Yes. him, making hap- fun of did that her pen Friday before she was mur- No, just— I mean [Cardwell]: dered? Well, I’m a little confused. [Prosecutor]: Friday it very hap- The [Cardwell]: you this Did have conversation pened. leading [Ingerson] [Richter] Okay. [Prosecutor]:

on— Uh-huh. [Cardwell]: Oh, than—yes. yeah, other [Cardwell]: right. you All And did ad- [Prosecutor]: day? monish her that same I—I I you. can’t lead And [Prosecutor]: not to I I told her do did. [Cardwell]: question this this just you want ask know, on,” that, him you “Don’t lead way. course, laughed. I again. we And Of Uh-huh. [Cardwell]: know, her, ‘You shouldn’t be you told may remember You [Prosecutor]: him, you really If like doing that. don’t mur- the exact [Richter] date do it.” don’t Okay? dered. you why tell Did she ever [Prosecutor]: I remember the date. do [Cardwell]: if relationship was in this Okay. it June 27th? Was thought [Prosecutor]: was a—ner- thought—she dy appealing? and not 28th. [Cardwell]: really I—I never said. [Cardwell]: She Okay. 28th. That was [Prosecutor]: dine, liked the wine think she Saturday. dinner, her to because he did take Yes. [Cardwell]: other took her to lunch and few before,— Friday [Prosecutor]: things. But— Uh-huh. [Cardwell]: witness, pass I’ll Your [Prosecutor]: would be [Prosecutor]:—which Honor.

27th,— right. All coun- [Defense THE COURT: sel]? Uh-huh. [Cardwell]:

CROSS periodicals EXAMINATION rent subject. the IAnd eight a lab with work other examin- [Ingerson] Was [Defense Counsel]: ers.9 being aware that he was led on?

[Cardwell]: No. Story primary responsibili- described his I Counsel]: don’t have fur- [Defense ties at as involving receiving DPS the of questions ther of this witness. fired-firearms suspect evidence and fire- right. THE All step COURT: You can Specifically, arms. Story said that his you, Thank ma’am. down. duties attempting entailed if determine two of sets bullets were fired the Story, Calvin Jr.: S. same or cartridge cases. also He Story, performs he Calvin S.. Jr. was the twelfth wit- serial number restora- determinations, tions Story is ness. he a forensic distance as well trial, scientist. At time of as tool mark the he said that examinations. serving his second stint the Story jury described to parts the the Department Safety. Story Texas Public gunning, the which consist the bullet stated that he has had a lifetime of experi- projectile goes out the end of the ence as a forensic scientist and ballistics barrel, cartridge the case into which the expert previously and has served this projectile against gunpowder, is fitted capacity for DPS and the Austin Police primer and the at one end of the bullet Department. Story averred after ignites gunpowder when is working for years, DPS several struck by a sharp object. explained He resigned and then went to work for the that bullets are different diameters and Department,

Austin where Police he estab- that the term “caliber” refers to the diam- laboratory. Story lished its first ballistics projectile eter of the in his used field. twenty years said that he worked Story explained “grain” that the term re- Department’s Austin Police lab before fers to a weight, measure of that there are retiring returning and then to DPS in 7,000 grains in a pound, and that 1982, where he has worked ever since. weight projectiles is grains. stated in Story experience described as follows: In completed my degree I Story work at explained also that at the time a University made, Southwest Texas State in barrel of a firearm is the manufac- I year San grooves Marcos. that—hired turer cuts inside the barrel expert, as a ballistics I and underwent a spiraling cause a projectile as it two-year on-the-job training program by through moves explained the barrel. He I supervisor at that start- time. then the projectile through moves working my barrel, ed own cases under his projectile by marked supervision joined grooves and—excuse me—I and lands that are cut inside the the Association of Firearms and Tool barrel markings these are re- Examiners, Mark and I’ve attended an- rifling. ferred to as Story explained that as seminars, training nual put seminars on a expert, ballistics compares by lands, that association. continuing grooves We do along with the twist of schools, year, barrel, education each various identify a particular projec- pub- —hosted the FBI and other having tile as through particu- been fired agencies, and subscribe to we the cur- lar barrel to a particular gun. attached trial, Story 9. At the thirty- time of years' experience around seven in his field.

713 gun” pro- from as the not fired the same gun said that each is built Story further jectile caliber of bullet. The from the crime scene.10 particular a recovered to shoot to be used with a firearm of bullet caliber Mark Wild: According to on the firearm. printed is number thirteen was Mark Witness guns can fire more than Story, very few employed by said that he is Wild. Wild however, did, Story cartridge. type one Department Safety of Public Texas identify two caliber bullets that can be Laboratory in Austin. Crime He identified Story firearm. said fired from the same job being print a his as latent examiner. Magnum caliber bullet and a that a .357 explained fingers palms that and con- Wild can be fired Special .38 caliber bullet both ridges tain and furrows. by using Magnum a firearm that is a .357 Wild, perspiration fingers palms from and Magnum that caliber but a .357 caliber touch, can transfer surfaces there- fit in a and cannot be fired bullet will on by leaving impressions touched the sur- Magnum caliber because .357 .38 prints. face that are called latent Wild large is too to fit into a .38 caliber bullet fingerprint averred that each individual’s gun. caliber is that unique. pattern He said left to the evidence collected Specifically print the surface touched called latent case, Story in this crime scene said and that the term “latent” means that the investigators had not recov- that because fingerprint palm print patterns and are casings, likely it was most ered shell eye. that visible to Wild said the naked weapon was a revolver. that the murder prints are lifted from touched sur- latent Story projectile also said that he tested the physi- by using various faces chemical the crime scene and deter- recovered at may patterns cal means and that their be diameter, weight, mined because its studied and identified. twist,” projectile and “left he believed went to the crime averred Wild Colt or Colt been fired from .38 .357 had finger- scene however, aver, that it Story did revolver. print palm print examination of other impossible to eliminate would be Envoy at the scene the murders. vehicle also manufacturers besides Colt. He forty-one usable He said that identified possibly thou- there were averred prints from the exterior of but unidentified have fired the sands of Colts could the bodies were found the vehicle which from the crime scene. projectile recovered many other unusable that there were Story that he tested the .38 Colt inside vehicle. prints had sent to revolver Grizzard Cobra Investigators submitted Wild con- Story said that he could neither him. fingerprints to palm prints and .38 Colt firm nor eliminate the Cobra he took comparison prints to the him projectile weapon fired the report wrote from the vehicle. Wild Story crime scene. also recovered from the print one latent he identified to match the twen- said that he was unable on the front doorframe as side driver’s from ty-two projectiles recovered fired left palm. match to being a projectile Indiana recovered anoth- that he identified also averred Story further averred he Wild the scene. on the out- “[tjhose print that found palm er were was certain that bullets 59. Story reports wrote four admit- 56, 57, 58, State’s Exhibits ted evidence as Ingerson’s McKinney” telephone side of the driver’s door as “Fred a num- ber of right palm print. that other Nelson testified that Wild testified “214-325-6178.” Richter, Ferris, persons she of Inger- of contact than those all son, prints or the reference list fingerprints palm no other because she learned of process Richter’s while of as to death person identified who made were making presented those calls. Nelson no of thirty-one them from the lift cards concerning Ingerson. direct evidence prints found the vehicle. Wild testified investigators only compari- asked Madelyn State’s Witness Clark: Victoria belong- Ingerson’s prints son to those witness, fifteen, The next number was ing Henry to a Brown. Specifically, James Madelyn Clark, Victoria who testified that said that he was to com- never asked Wild goes Maddy years she and was twelve pare fingerprints palm prints to either testimony. at the of old time her She said Sylla11 Kelly.12 or Mohamed David daughter. that she is Richter’s Maddjfs Kelly State’s Witness Nelson: testimony identifying consisted of a num- 85, photographs—State’s ber of Exhibits Kelly fourteen Witness number was Nel- 92, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, and son, who testified that she is a social work- knowledge people 102—and her of certain Department Family er with the Texas of who in Richter’s life around the time and Protective she Services and that photograph Ingerson her death. No assigned to a study concerning do home pictures. Maddy contained these possible Richter a for a placement six- that she Inger- familiar with vaguely Love, teen-year-old named Shakara whom son, remembering that she to once went TDFPS considered an “indirect relative” eat with Richter and Babe’s at a Nelson, to Richter. to Shakara restaurant, House Chicken also previously had lived with Richter “off and inside, went to go house but did not year on for to and-a-half two and that also to their home. She came years.” study Nelson conducted home presented no concerning direct evidence home in Granbury Richter’s charges against Ingerson. 2008. Nelson said that she did not com- Emily Shay Brewer: plete report her or make a recommenda- tion due Richter’s death. State’s Exhibit Shay Emily Brewer was witness number during 74 was admitted Nelson’s testimo- sixteen. She testified that she eleven ny. Nelson said that State’s Exhibit 74 was years old at the time of testimony. her She a list of gave references Richter her daughter. that she is Ferris’s concerning application ap- Richter’s to be 84—pictures Exhibits pointed parent. as Shakara’s foster One of Ferris and Brewer—were admitted with the names on that list of references was a her identification. She testified Sylla suspect proof Sylla 11. Grizzard testified that was a had motive to murder Richter, during investigation, Sylla the initial also tes- testimony tified at trial and his is discussed stand, During below. his time on the Grizzard Kelly David is one of Richter’s ex-hus- Sylla suspect- admitted Richter were Kelly bands. Grizzard testified was also running ed of a fraud scheme the tax office interest, person an initial Grizzard admit- worked, Sylla where she and Richter had Kelly reported ted that had been to have ha- relationship, intimate an and that he believed rassed Richter and on at least occasion one Sylla prison served time for a convic- reported had been left knife on have organized activity. Ingerson’s tion of criminal pillow Richter’s as a threat. point complains fourth of the trial court’s exclusion evidence contends is “Fred”—$10,000 $15,000 with her man named met when she went Richter, mother, just it in along put her bank account and account, want- By house. Brewer’s it look good—and make that Richter then Ingerson. Brewer ed Ferris meet said planned give money back to “Fred.” into house on that she went if Shakara asked Richter had ever him show a that occasion and observed “Fred,” feelings talked about her averred that to Richter and Ferris. She which Shakara testified: killed, mom she the weeks before her was told me that She wanted to be [he] with with and Ferris to meet went with Richter her to and she didn’t want be with him. Pasta a restaurant named said that her disgusted She and that that at the Fina. Brewer said while restau- bald, fat, just—he—that he was and and rant, Ferris told her that was words, me, ‘Oooh,’ was her she told she “crazy.” that she herself Brewer said didn’t, physically that she find him at- thought Ingerson “creepy.” was or nothing tractive like that.” Love: Shakara State’s Witness proved up depict- photographs Shakara Witness number seventeen was Shakara her, brother, Richter, ing her and which that she was nine- Love. Shakara testified 78, 79, as Exhibits marked State’s of her testimo- years teen old at the time and 80. exchanged She said that she text history having ny. Shakara related messages Friday, with Richter on June 27. people since she was five lived with various Shakara also stated that after Richter’s old, incar- years her father became when death, put she in a was mental institution that when she was cerated. Shakara said days. for three old, years her ten she moved with cous- Tanner Love: Clair, in, common-law Brent St. who was eighteen Witness number was Tanner to that married Richter. Shakara averred Love, who testified Shakara year, for one after she lived with them Love’s brother. He averred that he was Clair stayed which time she with St. trying adopt aware that Richter was Richter left him. she later She He him Shakara. testified Richter told girlfriend for lived St. Clair and his with more of a “Fred” was friend her years. two Shakara said that she then lived else, anything feelings than that she had Tarver, cousin, Crystal with a and man, for another she and “Fred” in foster care and placed then she was were on a “friends basis.” said that Tanner parents, lived foster Janine Vic- dating the other man he knew she was Franklin, years. tor for six Tanner named Mohamed. account, By lost Shakara’s contact going get Richter told that she him away moved with Richter when Richter money per- from someone and that some said that she and St. Clair. Shakara help going son was her out with the again into contact on Octo- Richter came part raising financial Shakara—he ber which was Shakara’s birth- guessed until moved out—and Shakara day. testified that Shakara no adoption. gave with the Tanner testimo- planning to at the time Richter adopt her or ny about the events June 27 2008. that she knew She averred killed. Witness Jeff Shaffer: study that about the home was conducted. Jeff plan- Richter was number nineteen was Shaf-

Shakara testified that Witness fer, Special Agent look that he is a ning try to make herself better who testified money twenty- from a financially by borrowing the U.S. Service with Secret nineteen-year-old said that student at Texas Shaffer he was years one of service. University at the time of trial. investigating telecommunications Women’s works forensics, working and that he stated that she was as a digital was She fraud and telephone Miyako in- Don- hostess at upon called assist concerning nelly the deaths Richter and Ferris came vestigations trial, night At time of into the restaurant and that she Richter and Ferris. sitting took a bar. working photo within “access them Shaffer was through area the Secret identified State’s Exhibits 141 investigative She devices” pictures that his work 149 as of both the explained He relat- inside Service. cards, any- outside of the restaurant and bar as it cellphones, credit ed Donnelly or good service. looked June 2008. identified thing that accessed working Bran- specialty being night the bartender as defined Shaffer cellphone foren- Krider. She also identified two of mobile device forensics don being Sawyer Tom bar workers as sics. only someone that she knew as “Matthew.” explained cellphone that records Shaffer Souligna “Tom” State’s Witness Sou- cellphone particular him to access a allow pradith: that number and then determine

phone’s usage, identifying numbers called twenty-one Soulig- Witness number calling particular well as numbers that as Soupradith. Soupradith “Tom” na said that cellphone. He Exhibits identified State’s Miyako at he works chef and also through pic- 104 123 as information and works the owners. He that he averred cellphone. taken from Richter’s He tures regular as a knew customer. Sou- through identified State’s Exhibits 136 pradith working said that he was at the phone as items recovered from Ferris’s Friday, on restaurant June 27. also Ex- records. Shaffer identified State’s Soupradith, people at being phone hibits and 189 as night, including Ingerson, that the bar outgoing records that showed that the last Richter, Ferris, they seemed like were phone cellphone call from Richter’s made just talking having a conversation. At p.m., eight at 11:52 minutes was dialed during night, Soupradith one time said midnight, on before June 2008. Unan- Ingerson say, “F—tag n-g— that he heard phone also incoming swered calls were Soupradith responded by s.” said that he having identified as been received but un- if looking they at Richter and Ferris to see 12:23, cellphone Richter’s answered they not really were offended but that did 12:29, 12:32, and 12:33 a.m. on June 28. Ingerson. pay Soupradith attention to later expert opinion, in his Shaffer testified that they “just him said that blew off.” Sou- outgoing phone no calls made on pradith averred he did not notice phone phone Richter’s after the call went left, say women but he when the two did p.m.13 out at 11:52 him and the left with other Donnelly: Danielle people Souprad- in the bar it closed. witness, twenty, people ith The next number said that he contacted the who Donnelly, night bar on the of the mur- Danielle who testified she were markers, any evidentiary theory 13. The these records or State’s is that established establish that the murders occurred at or may primary been the whether Ferris have p.m. 2008. The around 11:53 target. despite This is so the fact that Ferris strikingly re- record is silent as evidence appears to have been shot first. Ferris, cellphone garding whether her records gerson] requested wrong person contact the could have been the ders and Department give Granbury wrong place wrong Police at the at the time for cross-examination, Souprad- know, On statement. I I person all but he was the last heard that kind ith stated he often That saw with the ladies. is as is.” daily basis—not language in the bar also Krider testified “there were some Ingerson but from other customers. roughness in the conversations and hostili- Soupradith that the fact that this kind ties, but that seemed normal sometimes language used at the bar was not people enough between ... It didn’t seem shocking to him. motive, though.” He be Sawyer ordinary Louis out of anything Witness Thomas he did see III: night between and the wom- en, questioned Defense counsel Krider: III Sawyer

Thomas Louis was witness line, Bottom Kri- twenty-two. Sawyer [Defense counsel]: he is number said that Mr. der—Krider, as a Trey working night you also known as and was didn’t night on the really anything bartender the restaurant see out of the ordi- shift June 27. He averred nary—I’m referring your state- p.m. Sawyer to 10:00 p.m. from 5:00 now—you anything ment didn’t see at about or 10:00 that before he left 9:30 ordinary out about the interac- pf into Ingerson came the bar and met p.m., tion Ingerson, between Mr. and these waiting for In- two women who had been that, girls anything you? like gerson. I clearly No sir. to state [Krider]: tried Krider: Witness Brandon State’s that. twenty-three was Bran-

Witness number Witness David Cole Cook: Krider, that he was don who indicated at of trial twenty-eight years old the time twenty-four number was David Witness working and testified that was as a he Cook, that Cole who he was testified 27, Miyako on 2008. He bartender June Miyako night on the customer at the bar in that two women come he noticed Daniel or of Cook identified June 2008. p.m. around 9:30 and sit down at the bar at sitting at person Buis as another William “typical guests He described them as that up a night. put that the bar The State in, jovial, just having good came time.” that had photograph of Richter and Ferris point that at one in the Krider testified into and previously been entered evidence evening, Ingerson chastising he heard questioned Cook: controlling By about her conduct. Richter point at some did one [Prosecutor]: And account, of other men at Krider’s one or your thigh your grab of them inner that Richter came and the bar said over crotch area? that left groped him. Krider said when he Yes, sir. [Cook]: bar, Ingerson standing was beside which of those ladies [Prosecutor]: And Richter’s vehicle. up there was it? cross-examination, On Krider testified me, to The one on the—closest [Cook]: Briley suggested that or to either Grizzard right. the one on the hypnosis try him that he submit represent if I Okay. And night [Prosecutor]: of better remember the details you her name is and [that] [Richter] June said that he declined Krider [Ferris], prepared the other one’s name to do so. He averred that you disagree that with that? police statement to the he wrote would “[In- Clair, no, disagree, I sir. was Richter’s ex-husband Mad- wouldn’t and [Cook]: dy’s Tarver that she tried father. on to testify everyone that Cook went to call Richter “more than at ap- once” up p.m., and left at 11:45 got the bar about on proximately 12:80 a.m. that agreed the alarms were set and not but said that she did receive an an- said that and the doors locked. Cook swer. Tarver said she left a voice bar, to a he left he went over message but that Richter did not call back. car for few minutes and then left friend’s Tarver, According to it was unusual parking approximately p.m. lot at 11:55 her call. Richter did return Cook, According as he walked goodnight sitting two women Stacy Dooley: Ann State’s Witness car, standing was outside twenty-seven Stacy number Witness it. Cook testified never ex- Ann Dooley. Dooley said that she was angry an con- hibited demeanor. Cook living June 2008. with St. Clair She it friendly joking was “all firmed that staying Maddy testified that with her everybody getting fun and good and St. Clair June 27. along.” any He stated that he never saw Dooley, spoke with several Richter part or bitterness anger evening times June 27 because Cook anyone. toward testified that when Maddy upset. She also said that Mad- left, with or both of shook hands one dy spoke during Richter some Ingerson. the women and with He testified Dooley these calls. averred any animosity, any- he did detect agreed Maddy Clair would St. thing wrong, tension at time. Dooley remain and St. Clair Ryan Eric Contreras: late, night “probably because was twenty-five number was Eric Witness Dooley 11:45.” said that Richter texted her Contreras, Ryan that he was who testified night message stating, awith “Please Crystal common-law Tar- husband my baby cry.” Dooley don’t let averred ver knew Richter. Contreras stayed Clair with her that St. entire message that Richter left him a on his said night. asking if phone, Maddy she and could Marquis Cantu: Witness him spend night the with Tarver so not have to drive to that Richter would twenty-eight Witness number was Mar- Joshua, lived, Maddy’s where father Cantu, quis who that he is a Tex- testified Granbury. to then back Contreras averred Ranger. as He stated that he received an message that he received this “after mid- bag, evidence marked State’s Exhibit 157 [ajround 28, on night ... 12:20” June 2008. trial, from it at and took to Grizzard the Contreras said that he the call to returned lab in out Austin. Cantu said that he filled immediately upon receiving Richter the part a form of a and listed the contents message but that she did not answer. bag being as “khaki Cantu shorts.” Contreras said that he to call Richter tried labeling his contents as a time to no avail. second Contreras said part. on “shorts” was a mistake his He told him that she also Tarver had bag he look in the testified did not but was to call tried Richter. its averred some of told contents. He Crystal Tarver: State’s Witness writing attrib- bag, which Cantu Grizzard, Tarver, to Crystal twenty- stating uted that the contents witness number six, pair pants,” khaki cor- close was was “[o]ne testified she Richter’s brother, all, took six friend. said that her St. rect. In Cantu said he Tarver for?,” crime that Richter from to the “What Cardwell said separate bags Grizzard money said that in her account she needed laboratory. financially to show CPS that she was sta- Reinhardt: Mark Dale State’s Witness custody ble to of a child. take Cardwell twenty-nine was Mark Witness number wanting she knew Richter was Reinhardt, that he Dale who testified in. Shakara Cardwell admitted move the time of the investi- Ranger Texas money never did not saw gation. Reinhardt said he assisted that Richter received it know sure investigation by of this in- early part put from or into ever an account. Rein- terviewing witnesses. she told Richter testified that Cardwell hardt, Cantu visited Doris he and with [Ingerson], that “if she wasn’t interested Kelly. By Reinhardt’s Kelly, wife David on, accept to not him dinner lead and don’t account, being though Kelly, even David anything or lunch dates invitations ex-husbands, a natu- one of Richter’s him, fair to him on because wasn’t lead if interest, stopped investi- person ral he feelings she didn’t have the did.” Kelly Cantu gating David after he and had said, “[W]ell, She that Richter spoken Kellys. funny, laugh.” he’s he makes me present said that was dur- Reinhardt cross-examination, On averred Cardwell Inger- police ing one interviews when confronted with bank records from Granbury Department son Police account, the records Richter’s bank Inger- He stated that after June 2008. $10,000 deposit that the rec- show no search, gave permission son show that no ords found Ingerson’s vehicle and searched money in account. then cor- her Cardwell receipt from Penn- State’s Exhibit testimony say that Richter rected her Inger- zoil Kar for service done on Kwik $10,000 Ingerson gave her told her that receipt was Tribute. The son’s Mazda not that Richter into her account but put Reinhardt said on June service into bank account. put the money ever Crimestopper call about he also received Haught: Richie Christopher, who claimed a man named Granbury Department Detective Police of Richter responsibility for the murders Haught the thirtieth witness. Richie spoke that he and Ferris. Reinhardt said he assisted Haught said that Detective he had Christopher and determined investigation and early stages of the story up the of his involvement made “Tom,” referred whom he contacted to be “he wanted the murders because get his assis- manager Miyako, big boy his friends.” around who were at getting people the tance “Sissy” Rose Cardwell State’s Witness the, night of June 27 to on restaurant the. (Recalled): depart- Haught police at the meet with as “Sissy” recalled Cardwell was Rose Haught that he interviewed ment. previously testi- next witness. She According to up. witnesses who showed number eleven. fied as witness to the Haught, did not come Ingerson 28, Saturday, June department police spoke testified that she Cardwell 2008, other witnesses at the time back from hav- Richter after Richter came instead, up Ingerson Richter came but that showed Ingerson. ing lunch with She said voluntary inter- p.m. a gave gave and Ingerson that 8:00 told her view, admitted as recording a of which or that he $10,000 put into her account jury. asked, played 165 and $10,000 her account. State’s Exhibit put into When 720 Haught identified State’s Exhib- tion because had never

Detective before as taken through photographs, relationships. its 158 163 discussed his Schaad said helicop- a just days brother, after the murders from Ingerson, Don ter, showing the scene of the murders and brought his in for earli- also vehicle service surrounding neighborhood. morning day er the same as Ingerson. David Cole Thomas: thirty-one was number David

Witness State’s Witness Adam Unnasch: Thomas, a resident of Johnson Coun- Cole thirty-four Witness number was Adam he, his ty, Texas. Thomas said wife Unnasch, a Re- who testified he is April, spent night and their children Specialist Depart- search with the Texas 2008, 27, Kellys’ at the home. Thomas June Safety. that his ment Public He stated Kelly, that David one testified Richter’s providing in-depth telephone work involves ex-husbands, the home that did leave analysis and that unit he works night. also when the Tex- They were there within the known as Department is Rangers came to interview David and as Analysis the Telecommunications Research Kelly Doris June Center. prepared Unnasch testified April State’s Thomas: Witness Exhibit which he described thirty-two April number Witness a outgoing record of the number of Thomas, testified that she David who incoming messages calls and text between Cole Thomas’s wife. She said she telephone belonging two numbers to In- Kellys’ night also at home on the gerson persons and various other in 2008. very is a June 27. testified She Exhibit shows 264 total calls and text fight sleeper that she not hear messages exchanged between anyone night after leave home 8, 2008, May and Richter from to June everyone to bed. went 2008. The same exhibit shows 355 com- Jay State’s Witness Saundra Schaad: telephone messages bined calls and text Schaad, Jay Saundra witness number Lynn Harper between dur- thirty-three, operated that she a ing May and June 2008. This con- witness Granbury business in known as Kar Kwik outgoing telephone firmed that last call Lube and Tune. Schaad testified that phone made on June 27 from Richter’s 152, 155, State’s Exhibits showed began at p.m. 11:52 a voicemail Ingerson brought automobile message was left. He stated that there Kwik on Saturday, Kar service June incoming were four calls made to Richter’s By a.m. ac- at 11:30 Schaad’s phone on at 12:22 a.m. 2008—one count; vehicle a full- received unanswered; Contreras, from Eric another check, change including service oil hood a.m., call from the same number at 12:29 check, check, tire a fluids window unanswered; phone calls from and two Ac- cleaning, and a vacuum the vehicle. Crystal Tarver Richter—one 12:32 Schaad, cording to the exhibits demon- a.m., a.m., unanswered; and one at 12:33 all strated that these services were done message unanswered but a voicemail left. employee Kar Kwik named Scott phone Unnasch that no calls testified Wayman. stated that had Schaad were 11:52 picked up he answered returned after mentioned to her when his 27, 2008, up girlfriend p.m. phone. that on on Richter’s car he had broken with June drinking map habits. said that Unnasch testified that from the rec- over her Schaad thought portion an unusual that he this was conversa- ord locates cell towers her, that that contacts, to time he met he later called Ingerson was shown cellphone date, go 12:16 to out on a and that their cellphone on his her have made a call Texas, Granbury, relationship ultimately in became a sexual from a cell tower a.m. in Sylla early two minutes.14 said that Richter Lynn Harper—lasting to one. he met reflects a call and that he was contact with her map The same record second in 12:42 a.m. by night cell tower—at on murder. phone from a different her one to-Lynn Harper—lasting minute. out of Sylla, to he had been through that Unnasch also testified driving on June 27 work and town record, to trace map he was able cellphone Syl- apartment to his from back Louisiana. night Sylla’s on the Mohamed movement town, that out of two la said while he was Unnasch, According of the murders. in early their female friends who a call in Sylla that had made map indicated 20s—Casey Kristina Turner and Scott— Marshall, Texas, 8:00 vicinity around apartment. Sylla his stated that he were at in- Sylla’s that calls p.m. Unnasch said key with Turner so that the two had left a Granbury. creasingly got closer apartment. By could decorate his women Sylla that made and received exhibit shows account, Sylla’s he had an intimate rela- Granbury just p.m. after 11:16 a call within Turner, tionship merely but Scott Sylla that made out- Unnasch averred an Sylla mutual friend of his and Turner’s. an going p.m. call at 11:58 and received got that he Turner he said called when p.m. 11:55 and then did incoming call at Fort from Louisiana to tell her that Worth call until or make another receive way. he was his Saturday. Unnasch nearly 2:30 a.m. Initially, Sylla that averred from there Sylla’s movements in not know that be back Gran- he would through cellphone his us- could traced be that he had not received text bury and displayed age and the movement day. messages from her that or voice But Granbury to Dal- he had driven messages text that had come when shown Airport. International Worth las/Port Richter’s, Sylla said that phone from his Sylla: Mohamed dispute texts were he would Sylla witness number Mohamed two communi- from him that the had thirty-five. trial he was He averred, how- day. Sylla cated text African-American thirty-three-year-old ever, to Richter that he never indicated Ottowa, Canada, in born and lived who was in that he would be back town and he Granbury at the time apartment an Turner, who he contacted specifically He that he had been the murders. stated contacting. more interested said he was organized crimi- of the crime convicted account, Turner’s Sylla’s preferred he By activity in Texas and sentenced nal liaisons over those romantic Richter. years penitentiary, in a Texas eight And, Sylla, romantic according Richter’s years. Sylla said that which he served two in- his romantic him exceeded interest at the tax office he he met Richter terest her. coworker, who was came there his apart- Sylla got back to buying plates. He testified license p.m. 11:30 He 11:00 and the first ment between got telephone number Richter’s go Lynn left from there to voluntary home and then in one of his stated residence, night Granbury spent the Harper’s Police where recorded statements at he left Department after the restaurant with hen Friday night, he went to his Virginia. him in Briley that he then visited with Turner called him At averred Scott, awhile, times, packed for a and rested and other that a co- averred trip making Virginia leaving he to was Virgi- him as he to the worker called drove Airport morning. from DFW He said police him nia station and informed going he to visit his aunt and his was Sylla Richter had been murdered. also Sylla apartment said that he left his sister. story changed multiple regarding his times and a.m. between 2:00 2:30 first, Briley him or his who called had Sylla Ultimately, coworker. he could Sylla Virginia, Briley said that while first remember who him called Saturday, him on called “standing by that he simply stated was go police that he to asked the nearest testimony.” Sylla equally con- [his] was interview, Syl- for station an which he did. to him. as what caller told fused either had that it wasn’t his drive to la stated until point Sylla At to one seemed have said Virginia police that he station was that he had that Richter had deduced been informed that Richter been had murdered. Briley told him this, murdered because had Despite learning Sylla said that he something had happened bad to Richter attempted to Richter. call reported seeing and his coworker had a Sylla spoke said that he later with Griz- coroner’s vehicle Richter’s vehicle on near Briley zard and when he returned from his Saturday morning. Sylla But then said that Virginia Sylla visit. also that he was may he have learned about Richter’s mur- scared because there was talk the com- coworker, der this who learned about munity “may that there have been some- on the murder the Internet. racial thing going on that caused [Richter] Sylla Casey lose her life.” said that he was State’s Witness Turner: suspect. concerned that he awas thirty-six Casey Witness number was cross-examination, Sylla On elaborated Turner, twenty- who testified that she was previous on his conviction. He said that he four at the time of trial. Turner said that paroled years after still two Sylla met a customer at a she while he was parole June 2008. UPS store where she and Scott worked. Sylla averred the vehicle he drove Turner testified that she had and Scott airport was a sand-colored Cadillac decorating Sylla’s apartment been while he Escalade, purchased a vehicle he had few Turner, was out of town. prior Sylla initially weeks the murders. Sylla got apartment to his on June stated that he owned Escalade p.m. between 11:10 and 11:15 “[pjrobably year.” He admitted later then he left 2:00 a.m. to between and 2:30 that, roughly pur- months after he five airport trip. go Turner said it, placed chased he had Escalade Sylla’s flight “really early in consignment dealership with the that he morning go job.” [for Turner him] bought had it from. Sylla bag also said that not take a him airport. to the She that even

Sylla changed story multiple also testified though gone Sylla out to times about when told him about she had eat and who occasion, repeatedly Richter’s murder. At times his testimo- denied ny, sexually intimate.15 Briley he averred that two had ever been She informed Sylla specifically Turner were When was asked Richter. Turner intimate, and more testimony interested Sylla's the two had had spending time with Turner than was with Sylla buggies the many drove averred that contained that the reason also denied clothing items of specifically to different customers. flying out was home before not know that she did see her. Turner said mowing Marlowe said that he field or Ingerson. Sunday, his tractor on on June when he police a call from the department received Kristina Scott: State’s Witness asking Granbury him to come to his store Scott, thirty- number Kristina witness they pick up that clothing. so could some seven, twenty-one that testified she said that daugh- Marlowe he contacted his years time of trial. She stated old at the ter, Ehardt, Chandra who him went with Sylla’s apart- that she were at and Turner get store to clothing. According the ment, him to from Loui- waiting for return Marlowe, he had customers who were Friday, 2008. She siana officers, police deputies, Sheriffs DPS offi- that arrived later the eve- Sylla averred cers, Rangers. former Texas and Marlowe 2” to ning “sometime after catch a and left many that he that of said believed flight go “family.” Specifically visit regularly guns. customers owned and fired morning, Sylla leaving that Scott on Sunday night, He that said that she “wasn’t alert” and police pants took the had waking up a little kind “remember[ed] cleaning off for dropped Saturday, June [Sylla] opening bit the door and because 28, 2008. said that she did not know

stuff.” Scott Chandra Ehardt: State’s Witness Ingerson. Richter or thirty-nine Witness number was Chan- James Marlowe: State’s Witness She said she went dra Ehardt. father, Marlowe, dry with her cleaners Marlowe was witness number James to them the police meet the and deliver thirty-eight. Marlowe testified that he pick up. clothes wanted She con- Dry the owner of Comet Cleaners and of how the clothes process firmed the are Ingerson, and had knew said in, put bags, pushed checked over the dropped pair pants off a to be cleaned at counter, marking different meth- sorted Saturday, June 28. 11:59 a.m. dumped bug- into processing, ods of copy dry Exhibit 176 is a cleaner cleaning. for Ehardt gies testified that receipt by Marlowe. Marlowe identified shirt one picked up officer one police been a customer pants. Inger- pair She confirmed that it not be years several would other clothes were mixed customers’ son’s him to off clothes to drop unusual for be clothing placed together items that were Saturday day. on a or other cleaned bags buggy. Marlowe, procedure Phillip Stout: for the clothes to be the cleaners was Stout, off, tes- dropped Phillip forty, number placed on a counter when witness for the Texas De- placed bag. then in a Marlowe said tified he worked laboratory Safety of Public crime bags partment are not laundered sanitized in the Trace Evidence between different so the clothes Section. Stout sets hairs, fibers, glass, paint, bags, analyzes dropped are out sorted substances, materi- cleaning, placed appropriate into unknown and various and then explained gunshot residue buggies everybody else’s als. Stout how clothes lead, barium, containing compounds needing type processing. Marlowe encounter, "That, replied, one Turner no.” least sexual antimony Wayman: are within gas contained State’s Witness Scott ejected gun that is from a when it is shot. Wayman, forty- Scott witness number explained He also how these three sub- one, twenty-four testified that he at stances molten form result the the time of trial and that he had worked at explosion gunpowder sling of the the in Granbury the Kwik Kar on June gun. explained bullet out of the He how 2008, Ingerson brought his Mazda particles the stubs and the on them are in for Wayman vehicle service. as all being ranked with three a components vehicle, he vacuuming Ingersoris he finding of only “characteristic” and if a gun noticed under the By driver’s seat. found, account, components of the Waymaris two are it is a think it he didn’t finding unusual for a of “indicative.” customer have a firearm Stout said that the front seat. Wayman under said that particles these can be on collected what he later, “Ranger Danny” called and asked if analyzed. called stubs16 and then he anything had seen unusual Inger- case, In this gun- Stout said that he did soris vehicle when was serviced. Way- shot-primer-residue testing man said that he seeing gun. mentioned a pants and from under the driver’s seat in Wayman August made a statement in vehicle. Prom tak- the stubs Briley describing gun as a revolver en off pants, Stout averred Briley’s with a hammer. At request, he sample components one of it had all three picture a gun, drew which was ad- components. and three others only two mitted as Exhibit he Concerning samples from under the a gun. drew hammer on that He also iden- seat, front of the driver’s Stout said that a picture tified a revolver with a ham- only he particle found one saw, was a mer like what he which was admitted “[t]wo-component particle.” He testified as State’s Exhibit 170. particles can gun collect a Wayman only testified that he see could

when it is fired and then off on rub items part gun because it inwas clothing such as and underneath a car seat holster. He being described barrel as might come contact gun. with the pointed towards the rear of the vehicle and particles Stout said that can remain on seat, laying as fully under driver’s clothing, can piece be from one transferred exposed easy Wayman view. said that contact, of clothing to another and that was, specifically his statement “it had an S type this dry transfer can occur in a stamped on grip.” Wayman and W also cleaning environment. clearly He said that said that gun residue he identified the as having “I particles can exist for an a hammer: period indefinite could see the ham- It and, mer.” evidence that Wayman of time drew accordingly, it could be drawing hammer on the admitted as particles determined when gath- State’s Exhibit 172. pants ered on the and under the car seat.

Stout also said that in to firing addition Later, April Briley again gun, there are other situations that can Wayman. Wayman contacted said that Bri- types lead the same as residue found ley visited with him at a Whataburger Ingersoris pants, including: pads, brake about his Briley statement and then electricians, automobile car radio instal- Granbury another him detective took lers, and furniture finishers. guns. Wayman Cabela’s look at said that photograph A 16. of a stub is shown in State’s Exhibit 53. account, Inger- track of Cabela’s, By out a Probst he lost Wayman picked revolver Indiana, thought looked like the son when moved but he said Exhibits on June

he had seen he said that around 2008. reconnected photographs are and 175 began He indicated that he to meet with Cabela’s, which Bri- picked out guns Ingerson periodically talk with him on being Colt hammer- ley later identified phone. Propst had a con- Wayman Despite having less revolvers. fact that versation with about the Cabela’s, a Colt at he insisted at picked out Ingerson had a Richter. dinner date with in Ingerson’s car gun trial that the he saw Ingerson He said he later asked was Smith Wesson. & happened whatever him and the between Russell: Melinda State’s Witness in girl Granbury. Ingerson’s He said say, to “I response hang his head and Russell was witness number Melinda seeing anymore.” Propst won’t be her tes- that she lives in forty-two. Russell testified thirty-four years old Texas and was tified that sometime between the end South 2007, said that in early at the time of trial. She July he saw relationship with a four-month she had handgun Ingerson’s case in vehicle that intimate at some Ingerson that became Ingerson Propst “a .38.” said contained in that December She testified point. averred, however, actually that he never Ingerson her a silver revolver showed gun. saw the cargo of his car. in the area he had stored Lynn Harper: Ann State’s Witness Ingerson was at the Russell also said in March 2008. Heat Wave car show witness, forty-five, was The next number Mary Lynn Harper. Harper Ann Michelle Schroe- State’s Witness for a little dating Ingerson der: had been she beginning January years, more than two Mary was witness Michelle Schroeder relationship that her with 2008. She said she forty-three. She testified that number Harper Ingerson physically intimate. husband, through Ingerson her late met Ingerson that she talked with several said Ingerson’s best Craig, who was one Harper’s Friday, By times on June 27. friends, had that the two men and she said account, her that he Ingerson told twenty-five probably friends been in his office at going her hus- to do some work years. averred she and She July parade eat, house, the Fourth and would go grab band attended to a bite to Ingerson girl- and his Granbury for the plans later about talk with her friend, to one Lynn. testified as Schroeder her next called She said he weekend. Ingerson had with conversation that she if could come a.m. asked he at 12:15 being at subject when the over, yes. replied which night of the murders on the restaurant place to her Harper, Ingerson came up. averred that came She did Har- on June 28. Arlington about 1:30 a.m. any big being not act like his there was acted normal said per conveyed the attitude that deal and that he anxious, upset. agitated, or seem one of the just happened he be other that In- up, Harper After woke there. people to a car show go house to gerson left her Propst: Michael State’s Witness came back Field and then he at LaGrave a late lunch time. She to her house at forty- witness Propst, Michael number go back got then a call and left four, he testified that had known Granbury evening. school, years. high thirty so over since Danny Briley: also last person admitted was the parking night leave the lot that except for forty-six Danny number Witness the two sitting women still in the car Briley, who testified that he is a Texas parked parking Briley lot. averred Ranger. Briley was involved this murder that he coordinated Hutson’s visit to Shar- investigation from the time the bodies Hutcheson, ex-wife in morning were discovered on the of June Indiana, picked up when Hutson the .38 having arrived at the crime scene jacketed caliber bullets that went with the Briley 10 a.m. lo- around averred gun .38 caliber Hutcheson had said she cellphone cated Richter’s on the floorboard gave Ingerson. back to legs the vehicle between the driver’s immediately attempted to determine Briley said that he handled the contact phone who had been called personnel with the Kwik Kar in- and the phone. made calls Wayman. terview Briley stated that Wayman had identified the he saw as Briley persons located he was interested a Smith & he put Wesson and that that in in speaking cellphone’s with from the rec- Wayman’s typed, sworn because statement proceeded ords. He said that he to contact Wayman that was what Briley had said. many people who were on the cell- Wayman picture testified that drew the phone’s investiga- records and had other in revolver shown State’s Exhibit 172 people tors contact other he did not presence. in Briley testified that he account, talk to initially. By Briley’s Ingerson asked about the .38 caliber Colt Ingerson by contacted telephone and Special Ingerson’s Detective ex-wife asked him to come to Granbury for a in given Indiana had said had back meeting. Briley said that Ingerson came to Ingerson Ingerson Briley and that told Granbury police and went depart- that he last possessed gun, which ment, Ingerson gave where his first volun- revolver, he called a silver six months be- tary statement to Detective Richie fore Briley. interview Haught, Briley, who had not been at that interview, first Ingerson then interviewed Briley him told at p.m. Granbury around 3:30 at the Police that he the .38 to in sold a Mexican South Department. Ingerson maintained his in- Texas. statement would have nocence and all of questions. answered put the date of sale at either December interview, During that according to Bri- January Briley 2007 or participated 2008. ley, Ingerson was confused about what all videotaped three interviews time the Briley Inger- bar closed. that are marked State’s Exhibits thought son it p.m., closed 11:00 all of played which were midnight. fact Briley closed jury in open Briley court. admitted Ingerson’s testimony was spoke Elrod, Stonebraker, consistent with that he statements from other witnesses about the and Mathew—all of whom were from bar closing people leaving. Indiana—about .38-caliber Colt Briley, Ingerson spoke insisted that he Briley bobbed-hammer pistol. said that he girls with the girls two while the sat in investigator dug up was the who the twen- Richter’s car with the ty-two windows down. He fired from the bullets17 .38-caliber Story’s report stand, up concluded that bullet Indiana. When he was on the crime Story found at the scene was fired testified to his conclusion that the bullet twenty-two dug the same as these bullets at the found crime scene had not been fired Attorney]: your opinion? In pistol [Defense Colt bobbed-hammer Exhibit Story’s report, once owned. [Briley]: Yes. bul- these that Grizzard submitted shows Attorney]: they And went over [Defense analysis. Story at the lab lets to DPS vehicle, they not? cross, this testimony on During Briley’s [Briley]: Yes. transpired: colloquy Attorney]: It—the crime scene [Defense let me Attorney]: Okay. And [Defense off, didn’t contam- roped and /all please jury tell the just you ask already it. You’ve testified to inate from the evidence was recovered what that. or the—or the crime victim’s vehicle [Briley]: Correct. fin- other than Mr. scene got they there [Defense Counsel]: And bullet, 11, the gerprints or item hours, they there were several any way to this mur- connect him not? der. [Briley]: Correct. Well, only just [Briley]: that’s him to murder. thing to connect this you’ve And identified [Defense Counsel]: splatter blood and blowback and was, Attorney]: My question [Defense your things documenting like that bullets, hair, blood, DNA, I what the scene. fingerprints—and than his mean other of this your theory I understand [Briley]: Yes. came from a case is that that bullet say. That’s all fair to [Defense Counsel]: fact of weapon, but the murder Yes, [Briley]: sir. is there’s no ballistics and matter hair And or Attorney]: what [Defense in this weapon no murder case. there’s [Ingerson] any fiber or DNA Is true? biological found at other evidence was mur-

[Briley]: have not recovered We scene or the vehicle that crime weapon der this case. about, talking this science you were any no Attorney]: And there’s [Defense stuff? report that forensic or kind of ballistic vehicle, none. [Briley]: About that 11, the bullet item Number connects Attorney]: Okay. What about [Defense it, to DNA on Ferris’ with Shawna entire crime scene? by [Ingerson]. any gun ever owned scene, none other crime [Briley]: Entire no [Briley]: There’s direct evidence. you’ve than mentioned. Attorney]: Okay. back So [Defense you Attorney]: fingerprints? question. my original [Defense What vehicle—or recover out [Briley]: Correct. it, crime DPS—you do the DPS didn’t Attorney]: were his shoes And [Defense they competent? unit did it. Are stuff he clothes and the they—is the crime [Briley]: Are DPS vehicle, those in his turned over Yes. competent? scene blood, biologi- for for checked checked Attorney]: labs do And the who [Defense evidence, hairs of the checked for cal analyses, they competent? are fibers, victims, for that sort checked stuff? [Briley]: Yes. recovered in Indiana. twenty-two bullets same that fired the

from the he submitted Defense Witness Ronald Fazio: Thomas [Briley]: The clothes of things, for those sort were checked The first witness the defense was yes. Fazio. Ronald Thomas Fazio testified Okay. Attorney]: And were [Defense Laboratory he is the Director one of DNA, any biological—any any there Integrat- the senior forensic scientists hair, any recovered? fibers ed Forensic Fazio Laboratories. expert is an the field of forensic [Briley]: was some hair There and fibers science and criminal forensic laboratories. recovered, Ingerson. but none And, fact, Attorney]: Okay. [Defense Fazio Story’s he had reviewed fingerprints, we talked about this reports regarding Story’s analysis and in- earlier, you I if don’t know terpretation of bullets and firearms sub- any were—were here for that testi- agreed mitted for examination. Fazio were, mony, you I think don’t but Story’s reports; conclusions stated many you’re there were however, aware highly critical Stout’s prints on other unidentified the vehi- January gunshot report residue cle. agreed because while Fazio procedures identified Stout con- Yes, [Briley]: I am. cerning particles, the collection of Fazio Attorney]: So the—blowback [Defense gunshot analysis stated that residue is a you identified the dash blood tool, averring gun- terrible forensic vehicle, none of that was found shot particles may residue be found of—of Mr. clothes. tiny evaporate, are metal balls that do not decompose, do and can remain on sur- [Briley]: None of the clothes that he years.18 faces for He that it stated would submitted— surprise be no par- find certain residue Attorney]: What— [Defense belongings any person ticles who [Briley]:—that they found. Furthermore, owns firearms. Fazio testi- fied that if hard evidence collected from Attorney]: pants, None on the [Defense clothing has been in contact other shirts, not on the shoes. evidence, potential material or it then [Briley]: None. gunshot could not be ruled out that the- cross-examination, Briley may On admitted residue have been from transferred DNA, hair, blood, clothing no there was other collected or tested. He center, bullets testing gun- that constituted forensic evidence indicated that at his connecting Ingerson to the Bri- shot testing performed murders. residue was not ley very there no it is not a good likewise admitted because forensic tool. report kind of forensic or ballistic that He further some research shows 11, fireworks, pads, connects item the bullet with Ferris’s brake and other environ- scene, DNA on it found at the murder to mental contamination can gunshot show any gun by particles. Ingerson. gunshot ever owned There is residue-like He connecting Inger- no at all generally put very direct evidence residue examiners little son weight two-component particle to the murders. to a type 18. himself that there Stout testified was no Stout also testified that the of residue way long originated multiple how residue had been determine collected could have from pants on the and interior of car. non-firearm-related scenarios. tail- talking sitting while on the three-component tier is the top gate they of their vehicle when heard two particle. gunshots. said that the time of the Gomez Sonny Defense Witness Frisbie: gunshots was between 1:00 and 1:30 a.m. Sonny number two was Defense witness gunshots He testified came employed is Frisbie. He stated that he the restaurant area. While Gomez con- County investigator with the Hood an that the sounds he could ceded heard have He testified that Richter Sheriff’s Office. fireworks, by been made he averred that it complainant came was a walk-in when she gunshots like to me.” “[s]ound[ed] 10, September office on to the sheriffs complaint. to make a He wanting Joseph Defense Witness Morvan: in to she came file a terroristic said that Joseph Morvan defense witness give He was unable to de- report. threat five. Morvan confirmed that he number complaint by on how the was handled tails bought and Gomez had their food and were the sheriffs office. sitting yards Miyako 200 to 250 within Defense C. R. Feazell: Witness they heard what believed were when number three C. R. Defense witness gunshots at around 1:00 a.m. He testified property Feazell. He testified he owns eighty percent that the he was sure noises Tolar, Texas, pond. contains a He whieh gunshots. he heard were him from would call Curry: Defense Ronnie Witness time, permission go requesting time to pond to that to shoot firearms. He also witness, final The defense called its Ron- came to Fea- stated Curry, nie defense witness number six. property, zell’s he loaned his security Curry said that he works as a pickup truck. Feazell said that he often guard at Comanche Peak Nuclear Power pickup in his truck be- carried firearms his is in Plant. testified that home He cause, hunter, quail a lot of as a does Granbury, right Highway off of State shooting. is a shotgun He said home, way that on he rou- Curry said father. longtime friend Plumbing tinely by drives the Bear’s busi- Defense Witness Steven Gomez: Miyako. He testified ness that next Miyako and that when he drove num-

Steven Gomez was defense witness four, approxi- Plumbing parking area at who testified that he was Bear’s ber Granbury mately at a known as RC’s Bar 12:05 to 12:20 a.m. on June business night light-colored on the 2008. Gomez SUV-type he noticed an stayed averred that he at the bar until parked big that was under vehicle midnight and left with closed at about then floodlight parking in the area. When he friend, Joseph By ac- Morvan. Gomez’s murders, contact- of the he said he learned count, to a he and Morvan drove Jack-in- Granbury Department Police and ed the the-Box, arriving at about 12:15 a.m. on observing about gave statement they 28. Saturday, June Gomez said parked vehicle. minutes, taking food in about ten obtained Rebuttal Witnesses: time to 12:20 to 12:25 a.m. Gomez four witnesses. called rebuttal The State to stopped then eat their food hearing fireworks or Three testified

light behind the Jack-in-the-Box at his couple of hours earlier house, gunshots a mom’s somewhere 200 and between mid- evening of 27 but not around Miyako. According yards 300 to Go- mez, night. The fourth witness was the detective he and Morvan had eaten their food

730 2781, Curry gave (1979); Ronnie Powell v. statement 61 L.Ed.2d 560 State, having (Tex. light-colored 503, seen a 194 SUV. S.W.3d 506 Crim. State, 2006); Guevara v. App. 152 Testimony: End of (Tex. 45, 2004). 49 App. S.W.3d Crim. Both the State and the defense closed reviewing give must deference court calling any other without witnesses. responsibility to “the of the of trier fact fairly testimony, resolve conflicts in Discussion IV. evidence, weigh the draw reason charged Capital Mur- able inferences from basic facts to ulti 3, an by der indictment dated March Jackson, mate facts.” 443 U.S. 318- alleged The indictment in part as follows: 19, 99 In reviewing S.Ct. 2781. suffi- day ... that on or about 27th evidence, ciency of the we look should June, 2008, Texas, ... County, Hood before, occurring during “events and af- INGERSON, III, FRED EARL Defen- ter the commission the offense and dant, intentionally did then and there may rely on actions of the defendant knowingly cause the death of an individ- understanding which show an and com- ual, Richter, Robyn by shooting Robyn mon design prohibited to do the act.” firearm, awith and did then and State, Cordova v. 107, 698 S.W.2d 111 intentionally there cause the of an death (Tex. 1985). App. Crim. Each fact need individual, Ferris, shooting by Shawna point directly independently firearm, Ferris Shawna with a both guilt appellant, long as the during murders were committed force all incriminating cumulative same criminal transaction. circumstances is to support sufficient by jury was convicted State, the conviction. See Johnson v. 871 capital by murder and sentenced the court (Tex. 1993) App. S.W.2d 186 Crim. imprisonment parole. life without (“[i]t is necessary every fact point directly independently to the

Ingerson duly perfected appeal to this guilt; enough defendant’s it is if the con- court point: as his first “THE asserted clusion is warranted the combined EVIDENCE AT TRIAL PRESENTED and cumulative force all the incrimi- WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO State, nating circumstances.”); Barnes v. GUILT; SUPPORT THE VERDICT OF (Tex. App. 876 321 S.W.2d Crim. NO RATIONAL TRIER OF FACT State, 1994); v. Alexander 740 S.W.2d COULD HAVE DETERMINED THE (Tex. 1987). App. 758 Crim. Circum- ELEMENT OF IDENTITY BEYOND A probative stantial evidence is as as di- REASONABLE DOUBT.” rect in establishing guilt of evidence Meyers Justice has stated as follows: actor, an and circumstantial evidence assessing legal In sufficiency of the alone can guilt. be to establish sufficient support evidence to a criminal convic Guevara, appeal, at 49. On S.W.3d tion, we consider all the evidence in the the same is used for standard review light most to the favorable verdict and both direct circumstantial and evidence whether, determine based on that evi cases. Id. dence and reasonable inferences there State, Hooper v. (Tex. 214 S.W.3d from, juror a rational could have found 2007). App. Crim. the essential elements of the crime be yond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, Vir v. Jackson In Justice Stewart ginia, 307, 318-19, 443 provides U.S. 99 guidance: S.Ct. further

731 inquiry critical Winship speculation, After presumption. and a A pre- sufficiency sumption legal review of the is a evidence inference that a fact if support giving to a criminal conviction exists the facts must be rise to the proven are simply presumption beyond not to whether determine a rea- instructed, sonable doubt. jury but See Tex. properly to de- Penal Code § 2.05. For example, the Penal termine whether the record Code evidence person that a purchases states who or reasonably support finding could a receives a used or secondhand motor beyond a But guilt reasonable doubt. presumed vehicle is to know on receipt require this a court to inquiry does the vehicle has previously been “ask itself whether it believes that the stolen, if certain basic facts are estab- guilt at evidence the trial established regarding lished his conduct after re- beyond Woodby a reasonable doubt.” v. ceiving the vehicle. Tex. Penal INS, 282, 385 U.S. at 87 S.Ct. at 486 Code 31.03(c)(7). § A jury may find that the added). Instead, (emphasis the relevant element of sought the offense to be whether, question is viewing after presumed exists, it but is bound light evidence in the most favorable to § so. Tex. find In 2.05. con- prosecution, any rational trier of Penal Code trast, an inference is a conclusion fact could have found the essential ele- by considering reached other facts and beyond ments the crime reasonable deducing logical consequence from Louisiana, See v. 406 doubt. Johnson Speculation theorizing them. is mere or [356, [1620, 92 ]at ] U.S. S.Ct. guessing possible meaning about the 1624-1625[, (1972) 152 This ]. 32 L.Ed.2d facts presented. and evidence A conclu- play familiar gives full to the standard by speculation sion may reached not be responsibility fairly of the trier of fact unreasonable, completely but it is not testimony, resolve conflicts in the sufficiently based on facts or evidence evidence, weigh to draw reason- support finding beyond a reason- facts to ulti- able inferences basic able doubt. mate facts. above, juries permitted As stated are 307, 318-19, Virginia,

Jackson v. 443 U.S. multiple reasonable draw inferences 2788-89, 99 61 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d (direct from the or circumstan- evidence denied, 890, 100 444 cert. S.Ct. 62 U.S. tial), permitted but are not to draw (1979)(footnote omitted). L.Ed.2d speculation. conclusions based State, Hooper In court v. further State, (foot- Hooper v. at 15-16 S.W.3d states: omitted). note test, permit ju- Under the Jackson we prove The State’s burden here was to multiple ries draw reasonable infer- beyond a reasonable doubt that ences long sup- as each inference intentionally knowingly or cause ported by presented at the evidence of, first, Robyn death an individual named However, juries permitted are not trial. shooting her a firearm come to conclusions based mere and, second, intentionally did also or know- in- speculation factually unsupported ingly cause the death of a second individu- presumptions. correctly ferences or To al by shooting named Ferris her Shawna standard, apply the Jackson it is vital with a firearm. appeals that courts of understand the urges eight difference between a reasonable infer- items of evidence State trial, supported by guilt beyond ence the evidence contends establish in this approximately reasonable doubt circumstantial evi- an hour and a half before time, closing but dence Those items had returned and case. are: did not come back inside but sat in rather (1) Richter, Ingerson’s relationship with Cook, their car. of people David one at (2) Ingerson’s alleged motive to murder bar, parked had his car near where the of the victims because Richter’s disin- and, parked upon women were exiting the him, genuous feelings towards bar, had a brief conversation with one.of (3) at Ingerson’s presence the location leaving. men who were other Cook murders, time of the victims’ car, by spoke then came back Richter’s (4) Ingerson’s ownership gun of a women, with each of shook hands with same make and caliber as the murder or of Ingerson, got one both them and with weapon, car, in his just and left a few minutes after (5) presence of midnight. under the the bar closed at Cook described Ingerson’s driver’s seat vehicle the Inger- the attitude the two women and murders, day friendly. after the son at the time as ofAll the other people parking except left the bar area (6) presence gunshot un- residue Ingerson, Cook, by who was last seen der the seat of car driver’s leave, standing quietly last to outside the pants Ingerson wore the car conversing women’s with them. No one murders, night of the Ingerson angry or in any way described (7) Ingerson’s alleged suspicious activity moved to violent conduct standing while murders, following the talking outside Richter’s car with the wom- (8) Ingerson’s incriminating statements en. Not by one the witnesses called police and others. presented any angry State evidence of ex- proved Inger- The State contends it change of or conduct In- words between romantically son was interested in Richter gerson supports and Richter. No evidence using Ingerson’s but that Richter was feel- Ingerson the State’s contention that was ings gain. for her own financial Evidence driven murder because he was offended presented that was Richter made fun of Richter’s conduct towards him. However, his back. behind there telephone records established that mocking is no evidence Richter’s within the last two months before June belittling conduct was done to 2008, Ingerson exchanged face or that he was aware of this conduct. telephone calls and messages. text There Indeed, person Cardwell is the who testi- no evidence that of those contacts alleged fied to Richter’s belittling, anything friendly involved other than a wholly averred that unaware relationship and non-adversarial between of it. may Some evidence described what Cardwell, Sissy and Richter. flirty activity part be called on Richter’s coworker, Richter’s testified that she was allegedly grabbed bar—she the inner aware that Richter attempting to ob- thigh or crotch area of one the men tain money Ingerson. Richter wanted sitting the bar. But even after that $10,000 account, put her bank at- action, pa- the bar closed and the tempting to show that she could afford group, Ingerson trons left all in a Love, custody have Shakara sixteen- friendly speaking described as while year-old applied friend. Richter had Richter and custody Shakara, Ferris while the two women application and her were sitting parked in Richter’s car out- being investigated by agency. a state side the bar. The left subpoenaed the bar The women State Richter’s bank rec-

733 (1935); State, v. ords, large depos- no Anderson 85 Tex.Crim. which reflected 413-14, 639, (1919). 411, 640 in 213 S.W. $10,000 any other amount nor it—no dollars—was ever of a few hundred excess urges in its The State items of evidence in bank account deposited into her (4) (5) Ingerson’s previous ownership and 27, Ingerson 2008. prior months to June pistol of a .38 Colt bobbed-hammer be- relationship by with Richter his described gun it was a cause could have fired agreed just that we were stating, “We in the .38-caliber bullet found the back seat brother, to be friends.” Shakara’s of the Richter’s vehicle in going which the wom- Love, that Richter That Tanner told en found murdered. bullet was were 33, 34, 35, depicted in Exhibits just on a State’s him she were Envoy 36 as it was found inside the on the constantly main- “friends basis.” 27, morning after June voluntary in his statements made to tained officers that he was the law enforcement The bullet delivered to Calvin S. friendly relationship in merely Jr., Story working a forensic at scientist intimately not Richter and that Depart- the Firearms Section of the Texas any way. in involved Safety Laboratory, of Public Crime ment analysis. is report His admitted as two of first items evi The State’s Exhibit 56 conclusion and states his State’s support the verdict are dence that it claims in regarding the fired bullet—identified speculation grounded not report mere ad same the bullet as item 11—the conten pictures: mitted The State’s third the above-referenced depicted evidence. bullet, 11, opinion our “It is that this item presence tion is outside the capable fired from a firearm of cham- being person last seen with bar and bering firing Special, Mag- a .38 .357 guilt. of his Ferris evidence (Auto) num, cartridge. Super or .38 caliber presence person “Mere of a the scene include, possible A list firearms would before, during[,] or crime after either to, Special not be limited and .357 but .38 offense, scene, from flight even or Super Magnum Colt revolvers and .38 more, is insufficient sustain a without (Auto) pistols. to the party as a offense.” See conviction 01-14-00288-CR, State, 2015 No. being Siros v. found that No evidence (Tex. 3981774, Magnum App.-Houston *4 or to a .357 possessed had access WL (Auto) ref'd) (mem. 30, 2015, Super pistol, those pistol a .38 pet. Dist.] June [1st might categories pistol types two op., designated publication); Garcia projectile back fired the found 602, (Tex. have State, App.- 612 v. 486 S.W.3d Envoy vehicle were discussed ref'd); 2015, Thompson v. pet. San Antonio Instead, the focus witnesses. the State’s 413, (Tex. State, Crim. 697 S.W.2d 417 weap- identify the “murder attempting State, 1985), v. App. accord Gross 380 Special Colt .38 bobbed- on” turned (Tex. 2012). 181, App. 186 Crim. S.W.3d Ingerson purchased pistol hammer State, 407, 412 551 also Ellis v. S.W.2d See 12,1999. February Elrod on James State, (Tex. 1977); v. App. Crim. McBride (Tex. 318, App. (4) “(4) 319-20 Crim. summary 486 S.W.2d item reads The State’s State, 1972); Tex.Crim. McCormick v. 168 of the ownership of [Ingersoris] (1959); Burleson 329 437 caliber as the murder S.W.2d same make and (5) State, 2, 3, summary 101 item weapon.” 132 Tex.Crim. S.W.2d v. (1936); State, gun under the v. presence Gillard 128 “the reads day [Ingersoris] vehicle 679 driver’s seat Tex. 82 S.W.2d Crim. gun Ingerson pur- after the murders.” The pistol the .38 Colt bobbed-hammer chased from Elrod one of the three by Ingerson once owned was not the mur- categories pistols that might have fired weapon. der projectile the bullet the back of found Therefore, (4) the State’s evidence items vehicle. The Envoy evidence trial the (5) and are not inferences drawn from Ingerson was that stated that he had sold speculation. facts but rather A are .44 pistol this “to a Mexican in Texas” South pistol Smith & was Wesson found at the 27, sometime before June 2008. No witness Ingerson pistol Wayman residence. The any proved possession or evidence recent the seat of observed under the pistol by Ingerson. of that is inference Saturday, vehicle on June was type because once owned a reported first pistol and drawn as a with a of pistol might projec- have fired the and, by testimony, hammer said to tile, possessed the murder Bri- weapon. have a Smith & stamp. Despite Wesson ley and learned from tes- Grizzard Elrod’s Wayman having picked out a Colt .38 at timony had that he fired the .38 bobbed- nearly year Cabela’s and a half after his pistol hammer into a doing dirt berm while statement, original Wayman’s testimony at target practice. Briley and Grizzard trav- trial was that gun he chose the at Cabela’s dug many eled Indiana and projectiles gun because it was the most like the They from berm. twenty- the dirt found seeing gun remembered but that the projectiles two that were .38 caliber. Those saw in vehicle was a Smith & twenty-two projectiles were submitted to Story, expert Wesson. the State’s ballistics Department the Safety Texas of Public witness, definitively any ruled out & Smith crime lab by and examined forensic weapon. Wesson as the murder expert Story. Story’s testimony about Ranger Briley Way- interviewed Scott twenty-two those projectiles was that the man, employee an at the Kwik Kar car family characteristics that are the meas- August wash in 2008. vacuuming While grooves urement the lands and on the 28, car Saturday, Way- twenty-two .38 caliber dug-up bullets de- man a pistol noticed under the front seat finitively did not match Exhibit the driver side the car. He out a wrote projectile. crime scene No mention was written statement in handwriting, which by Story made expert of these typed was by then to Wayman sworn twenty-two dug-up bullets right- had a in front of a notary. drawing He made a hand twist that would contrast gun that he saw admitted into evidence left-hand twist the Exhibit 44 murder Exhibit State’s The drawing clearly projectile scene so as to eliminate them depicted gun awith hammer. At (as from being by pistol Briley fired a Colt testified). August same time in Instead, he initialed a Story’s conclusion that picture gun of a State’s projectile the crime scene Exhibit 170. Exhibit 44 and Both drawing picture twenty-two identi- dug .38 caliber bullets up gun hammer, fied a from that had Indiana were not thus fired the same Both gun. prosecutor bobbed-hammer family based characteris- questions tics that not match defense counsel asked the lands grooves prepared by on the bullets. That the written Way- fact contrasts statement man; however, theory with the it State’s the .38 Colt was not introduced into course, pistol purchased bobbed-hammer it comply In- evidence. Of did not gerson from weap- theory Elrod was the murder trial pistol un- short, on. In the State itself established der the seat on June a .38 Wayman despite splash DNA found pistol. testi- evidence near Colt bobbed-hammer bodies, no pistol that the he saw was a Smith & the two evidence fied DNA stamped it an & Ingerson’s pants. and that S W found on Wesson put grip. Ranger Briley on the down (7) (8) Item and item the State’s Wayman Wayman’s sworn statement summary argument relate assertions grip on the and that saw the S & W part on the of the State that Wayman thought was a & Wesson Smith guilty committing suspicious activity fol- later, 2009, Rang- pistol. months Several lowing gave incriminating murders Briley and Detective met Scott er Grizzard statements to police and others. The facts Wayman Whataburger at a he was where Ingerson voluntarily are that met three Keller, working they again ad- separate times law enforcement offi- subject pistol the of the he had dressed occasion, cials On without counsel. each Ingerson’s under the of vehicle. seen seat Ingerson maintained his innocence. State’s investigation The focus of the in 2009 was Briley witnesses Grizzard and both testi- pistol. on the .38 Colt bobbed-hammer fied that was confused as to the During meeting, Briley their and Grizzard actually time that he left Mikado because Wayman pictures of a Colt showed .38 11 believed that the bar had closed at pistol took him bobbed-hammer and then p.m. midnight. instead of That confusion pistol to see if he a to Cabela’s could see being incriminatingly suspi- falls' short of year the one he a earli- like described not, activity. Ingerson cious even after Cabela’s, Wayman At chose a .38 Colt er. heavy pressures being applied the vol- pistol looking like the bobbed-hammer interviews, untary agree with the State’s pistol he saw under the seat. position that the murders. he committed by His characterized repeated denials are testimony Wayman’s is the sole part cooper- as a on his State failure pistol of source evidence about under again, investigating ate with officers. Once Ingerson’s testimony of This seat vehicle. summary argu- of evidence and State’s proof this evidence fall short be speculation ment amount to and are hot yond a that the reasonable doubt murder grounded in facts. Ingerson’s weapon was under the seat 28, car on June Conclusion V. (6) summary Item directs only proven by fact The sole and presence gunshot attention “the resi- beyond a reasonable doubt is State [Ingerson’s] due under driver’s seat person the last seen Wayman pistol car.” Scott testified that vehicle, the victims’ bodies Richter’s where

awith Smith & Wesson trademark was has were found. As this court stated: under seat of vehi- the driver’s alone can be day the car on the after the evidence cle at wash Circumstantial guilt. Hooper v. logically the sufficient to establish weapon murders. That 9, 13 (Tex. State, App. in that 214 Crim. powder source of the residue found S.W.3d 2007). location, juries permitted are The fact And while under the driver’s seat. multiple inferences as weapon seat draw reasonable was under driver’s supported by long as inference is logically ex- each vehicle likewise trial, juries par- presented at plains gunshot the minimal amount of the evidence permitted to come to conclusions Ingerson’s pants. are not ticles found factually speculation on mere or gunshot directly linked based residue was Furthermore, presumptions. or unsupported inferences any way to the murders. 736

See, State, e.g., Megan Winfrey 1, 16-18, v. 2150-51, 393 437 U.S. 98 S.Ct. (Tex. 2013). App. S.W.3d 771 Crim. (1978); Winfrey, 57 L.Ed.2d 393 S.W.3d “ is a ‘[A]n inference conclusion reached 774; Stobaugh, 421 S.W.3d at 869. by considering deducing other facts and them,’ logical consequence while OPINION AND ORDER ‘Speculation theorizing mere PER CURIAM guessing possible meaning ” presented.’

facts and evidence Id. Justice Sue motion for Walker’s 16). (quoting Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at court appeal hear this en banc was State, Stobaugh v. S.W.3d 861 considered the entire court. R. See Tex. (Tex. ref'd). App.-Fort 41.2(c), Worth pet. App. P. A majority 47.5. court voted not to appeal hear the en banc. Having thoroughly all of reviewed Therefore, the motion is denied. having categorized evidence and the evi- dence in presentation accordance with its WALKER, J., dissents the denial of brief,

in the State’s we make it clear that LIVINGSTON, C.J., en banc hearing; sufficiency our review the cu- encompassed GABRIEL, J., join. mulative force of all of the circumstantial evidence and the reasonable inferences DISSENTING OPINION FROM OPIN-

supportable from that evidence in viewed AND ION ORDER MO- DENYING light the most favorable the State. We TION TO HEAR APPEAL EN reviewing hold that all of after the circum- BANC1 stantial any evidence and reasonable infer- evidence, ences the evidence is WALKER, SUE JUSTICE insufficient to convince rational factfin- Pursuant operat- this court’s internal beyond a der reasonable doubt that Fred rules, ing I moved that the court hear this Earl Ingerson, III intentionally appeal en banc. majority A of the court knowingly individual, death of cause the an against voted the motion for en banc sub- Richter, by Robyn shooting with a her mission. I dissent from opinion this court’s firearm intentionally and did cause the and denying order the motion for en banc individual, Ferris, death of an by Shauna (au- submission. App. See Tex. R. P. 47.5 shooting her with a firearm. We hold that thorizing any justice to opinion file an the evidence is insufficient to establish the connection with hearing the denial of a en beyond elements of murder a reasonable banc); O’Connor v. First Appeals, Court doubt. of (Tex. 1992) 837 S.W.2d 97 (orig. pro- Having Ingerson’s point sustained chal- I ceeding). believe that en banc submission lenging sufficiency of the evidence to appeal of this is unavoidable conviction, support his we need ad- prudent course grant would have been to remaining points. dress reverse We en banc submission on the court’s own judgment trial court’s judg- render a motion prior to the of panel’s issuance acquittal. ment of App. See R. P. Tex. opinion today. 43.2(c), 51.2(d); Massey, Greene v. 437 U.S. 19, 24-25, 2151, 2154-55, 98 S.Ct. 57 appeal This was submitted to the court (1978); States, L.Ed.2d Burks v. United with oral argument May to a opinion deny- 1. Neither this court’s and order particular ruling dicative by of a this court on ing hearing appeal any potential of this en banc nor this rehearing State’s motion for en dissenting opinion should be as in- construed banc. justices consisting later panel Justices Lee be reincarcerated for life in accor- dance his sentence.2 And we Dauphinot, McCoy, and Ann Bob Bill Mei- would finally appeal have this without decided McCoy retired from er. Justice the court possibility yet delay further due to Therefore, pan- December anomaly upcoming changes today deciding appeal el this consists of composition of this court.3 For these rea- justices, only Dauphinot two Justices sons, I moved appeal the court to hear this 41.1(b) Meier. See Tex. R. App. P. (provid- en banc. ing that if argument after member of the Yet, majority court panel cannot voted participate deciding the deny seeking en banc case, motion submis- may case be decided the two this appeal. sion of I therefore dissent remaining court justices). Our consists of from this court’s opinion deny- and order justices, only seven two of them have ing hearing the motion for this appeal pre- reached the the evidence decision en banc. See Tex. by the court R. App. P. jury support sented is insufficient 47.5. Mr. conviction murder and have

joined today’s judgment acquitting Mr. C.J.; LIVINGSTON, GABRIEL, J., I Ingerson. Consequently, believe that a join. rehearing State’s motion for en banc will ultimately inevitable and that we be appeal this en

required to consider banc

any event. me, judicious

To the more course would appeal have been to hear this banc en Miguel HERNANDEZ, Appellant Luis today’s prior to two-justice the issuance v. so, doing panel opinion. By we have would Texas, The STATE of State that the possibility avoided the outcome appeal change this on en banc will submis- NO. 02-14-00498-CR acquittal sion from judgment to an Texas, Court Appeals trial court’s judgment affirmance of the Fort Worth. and the of an possibility additional time 3, 2016 DELIVERED: November delay drafting associated with the of a new majority opinion en banc. have Discretionary We would Review Granted victims, spared the families Mr. March Ingerson, Ingerson’s family, Mr.

possible having toll of In- emotional Mr.

gerson today only on bail after released Crim, 44.04(h) ing from December

2. See Proc. Ann. art. the court effective Tex. Code (West 2016) 2016; Supp. (providing that a con- justice "[i]f a new will be elected Justice by viction decision of a seat; is reversed Court of Dauphinot’s Gardner’s and Justice seat defendant, Appeals, custody, if in is enti- If appointment. will be filled an State's bail, regardless tled to on reasonable release rehearing motion for is not decided en banc length imprisonment, pend- of the of term of prior to December 2016—as would be ing appeal by final of an determination likely opinion be majority if a new must draft- state or on a motion the defendant for discre- justice(s) new on our court will be ed—-the review”). tionary part required to State's motion vote on the App. R. the en court. See Tex. P. banc court, justices 3. Two on our Justice 41.2(a). Gardner, Dauphinot Justice will be retir- notes as being by Ingerson caliber once owned as extraneous-offense and extraneous-bad-act ev- bobbed-hammered is inconsistent with the idence. theory gun State’s seen under the seat shortly car after the murders—a displays picture The of Colt .38 7. exhibit gun Wayman Special VI cock witness Scott SF with a hammer that can identified Dr. State’s Marc Krouse: part Witness back the first of June 18,19, 2006. She identified State’s Exhibits witness Dr. seventh Marc and 20—a .38 Special Colt Detective Krouse, job it is to investigate whose being bobbed-hammer revolver—as pic- Denton, Parker, Tarrant, deaths in looking gun gave tures like the that she Johnson Counties. He Ingerson. back to She averred that she Deputy title is Chief Medical Examiner kept separate and the bullets that he is also called on from time to gave the bullets to Hutson. perform County. time to for services Hood prepared sponsored Krouse admis- Wayne State’s Brent Witness Watson: autopsy Richter, sion reports Wayne Witness number ten was Brent Ferris, State’s Exhibit Ex- Watson is a forensic Watson. scientist extensively hibit Krouse testified the DNA unit of Department the Texas the bullet wounds and the condition Safety Waco, Public Laboratory He Crime bodies. testified that the time of Richt- er’s death was Texas. He was one of p.m. between 9:00 and 2:00 the crime scene presented a.m. He concerning analysts no evidence who came to the crime scene on Ingerson. Saturday, June 28. He described his work section, stating the DNA that he exam- State’s Witness Joe Hutson: physical ines evidence from crime scenes Hutson, eight Witness number was Joe for any cells or fluids contain DNA. officer, Ranger a former Texas law whose generates Watson said that pro- DNA connection with the in July case was that files from those cells and fluids. He Special jacketed 2008 he collected six .38 job averred that his doing includes crime wife, bullets from former Shar- investigations, and he was called to do that on Ingerson Hutcheson. Hutson testified in this case. put that he the bullets into an evidence

Case Details

Case Name: Fred Earl Ingerson, III v. State

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Oct 27, 2016

Citation: 508 S.W.3d 703

Docket Number: NO. 02-11-00311-CR

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.