Eric Alfredo Berrios v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 01-04-00168-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; January 12, 2005; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Eric Alfredo Berrios was convicted of capital murder, with the trial court sentencing him to life imprisonment since the death penalty was not pursued by the State. Berrios raised four points of error on appeal, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the jury charge included erroneous instructions regarding the law of parties and transferred intent. The court affirmed the conviction.

On the night of September 29, 2002, Houston Police Officer P. LeBlanc was dispatched to a shooting scene in a parking lot where he discovered two bodies: one near a red Chevy Blazer and another in a maroon Dodge Neon. Officer LeBlanc collected 81 items from the scene, including bullets and shell casings. Witness Benjamin Belmarez, who was in the Blazer with his cousin Adolfo Rodriguez, recounted that they entered the parking lot to avoid police and encountered gunfire from an unknown assailant, Mark Perez, who approached with a handgun. Although Perez shot at another vehicle, Belmarez did not see him shoot at their Blazer. Simultaneously, another assailant, described as a Hispanic male with a rifle, began shooting towards the back of the parking lot, hitting the Blazer. Belmarez was injured, and Rodriguez was fatally shot, with the fatal bullet traced back to the front of their vehicle.

Additionally, Officer M. Kocurek witnessed a green Ford Explorer, driven by Colby Martin, stop at an intersection after fleeing the scene, where he learned that two passengers had been shot. Martin, with other friends, had also entered the parking lot to turn around, indicating a chaotic series of events during the incident.

A confrontation occurred in a parking lot involving Mario, who was shot twice in the thigh after exchanging words with a young female driver of a Lexus SUV. Following the exchange, a man in the Lexus began swearing at Mario, leading to approximately 15 to 20 gunshots directed at Mario's vehicle, the Ford Explorer, which sustained eight bullet impacts. Mario reported the shooting to police shortly after the incident. 

Eugene Perez recounted events from September 28, 2002, involving a group that included his brothers and several others who had just left T-Town club. After a series of altercations at the club, the group gathered in a parking lot to retrieve their vehicles. Eugene drove a Chevrolet Impala and later retrieved keys to his S-10 truck from his brothers. Tensions escalated when Eugene observed a potential fight, with individuals, including Johnny Gomez, armed with an assault rifle, chasing the Explorer. 

Eugene testified that he heard multiple gunshots while ducking for cover. He later saw Steve take the rifle from Johnny and get into Eugene's truck, which he then drove home. Although Eugene believed appellant had used an assault rifle, he did not witness appellant wielding a weapon or being in the immediate vicinity during the confrontation. However, he later heard appellant claim he had fired his weapon during the incident and indicated they might have targeted the wrong individuals. Surveillance footage presented in court confirmed the involvement of Johnny with the rifle and identified appellant near Eugene's truck, although it was clarified that the rifle did not originate from Eugene's vehicle. Eugene characterized the group as protective of one another, stating they would defend friends in a fight.

Arthur Jurado testified that at the T-Town club, the appellant initiated a fight by punching Pena’s ex-boyfriend, leading to their expulsion from the club. In the parking lot, Jurado observed Mark, a passenger in Pena's Lexus SUV, arguing with the occupants of a green Ford Explorer before moving toward the back of the lot while holding a .40 caliber handgun. As gunfire erupted from Johnny, who was armed with an assault rifle, Mark also began shooting. Jurado later saw Steve take the assault rifle from Johnny, and he noted that the appellant was running towards their cars with a black rifle. Jurado recalled having seen the appellant with the same rifle days earlier at the Perez house and mentioned that the appellant later admitted to him that he "had messed up."

Annalee Pena recounted that while leaving the parking lot, Mark became agitated during an exchange with the Explorer's occupants. She confirmed that Mark didn’t have a weapon when he exited the vehicle, although Johnny was seen with a rifle. She heard gunshots shortly after Mark and Johnny moved toward the back of the parking lot. Initially, she did not mention the shooting to police due to fear, but later indicated that both Johnny and the appellant carried long guns, though she was uncertain about the appellant's involvement. 

Carlos Hernandez, a passenger in the vehicle with Isai Mares, testified that upon entering the parking lot, he initially mistook gunfire for firecrackers. He witnessed two individuals shooting at the Explorer, one wielding an AK-47 and the other a rifle, resulting in Mares attempting to flee but ultimately being shot, leading to his death.

Houston Police Sergeant P. Motard noted the recovery of both rifle-type and pistol casings at the scene. Mark identified himself as the shooter of a .40 caliber handgun and confirmed that both Johnny and the appellant had rifles, targeting the Explorer. Johnny admitted in a sworn statement to firing his rifle during the incident. 

Angel Resendez described picking up the appellant and his girlfriend before heading to the club. After the fight, as they were leaving, he noticed Mark running towards the back of the parking lot, prompting him to prepare for a fight, suggesting a group mentality where they would all engage if one did. Resendez ran towards the altercation without the appellant.

Witness accounts describe a shooting incident involving multiple individuals. Resendez observed Johnny using an "S.K.S. or A.K." rifle and Mark with a .40 Glock, but initially did not see appellant with a rifle in the parking lot. However, he later saw appellant, carrying a rifle distinct from Johnny’s, follow him to his car. When questioned about the situation, appellant apologized, and took the rifle into his house after being driven there by Resendez. Resendez later amended his earlier statements, admitting he initially lied about seeing appellant with a gun, fearing repercussions. Doug Gomez confirmed seeing Johnny firing an assault rifle and noted appellant was near him with a rifle but did not witness appellant shooting.

Dr. H. Narula, an assistant medical examiner, identified gunshot wounds on victims Rodriguez and Mares, attributing their deaths to gunfire consistent with rifle use. A firearms examiner, Darrell Stein, noted the recovery of .40 caliber handgun and 7.62-by-39 millimeter rifle shell casings at the scene, suggesting that the victims were likely shot with rifles rather than handguns.

Appellant's legal arguments contend that the evidence was insufficient to prove he conspired to cause the deaths of both victims, asserting he acted independently. Legal sufficiency is assessed by viewing evidence favorably for the verdict, allowing for conviction on any supported theory presented to the jury.

Factual sufficiency reviews assess evidence neutrally, allowing a verdict to be set aside only if the evidence is insufficient to uphold it or if contrary evidence overwhelmingly negates the prosecution's case. The jury serves as the exclusive judge of witness credibility and the weight of their testimony. In capital murder, a person is guilty if they murder multiple individuals in a single criminal act, and under the law of parties, an individual can be held criminally responsible for an offense committed by another if they intended to promote or assist in that crime. Guilt under this law requires evidence that the parties acted together towards a common goal, and the fact finder can analyze events surrounding the offense to establish participation. Cumulative evidence can support conviction, and intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence. It is unnecessary to prove that the appellant fired the fatal shots if the jury was instructed on the law of parties. The appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence regarding his involvement in the murder of Adolfo Rodriguez, arguing that the murder was committed solely by Johnny Gomez without prior agreement, and contends that there was no evidence linking him to a conspiracy or joint action with Gomez in the killings.

Appellant claims that he acted independently when shooting into a crowded parking lot and argues that, if he was the shooter responsible for Isai Mares' death, he could only be guilty of intentionally and knowingly causing a single death, not multiple deaths in the same incident. However, evidence indicates that appellant participated alongside Mark Perez and Johnny Gomez in shooting at the occupants of a green Ford Explorer, resulting in the deaths of the complainants. Witnesses, including Eugene Perez and Mark Perez, confirmed that they targeted the Explorer after a confrontation. Resendez testified that he and appellant intended to fight, with appellant carrying a rifle. Additionally, Eugene Perez reported that appellant admitted to firing his gun during the incident. Multiple witnesses corroborated seeing appellant with a rifle both during and after the shootings. A firearms expert confirmed that the complainants were shot with rifles, and law enforcement verified the use of multiple firearms. Testimony indicated that the group operated as a close-knit unit, ready to defend each other. The cumulative evidence was deemed sufficient for a rational fact finder to conclude that appellant acted with intent to promote or assist in capital murder, affirming his conviction under the law of parties. Appellant’s first point of error is overruled.

Appellant contends that there was no evidence supporting the jury's finding of his involvement in capital murder as a party, asserting that key witnesses did not see him with a weapon or firing during the incident. Specifically, Benjamin Belmarez and Eugene Perez did not observe appellant shooting, while Annalee Pena and others were uncertain about his possession of a rifle. However, substantial evidence supports the jury's conclusion, including testimony from Angel Resendez, who described appellant carrying a rifle and participating in the events leading to the shootings. Additionally, appellant allegedly admitted to shooting in conjunction with another shooter and expressed regret for the incident. Witnesses confirmed that multiple firearms were used, and the jury was tasked with evaluating the credibility of conflicting testimonies. The evidence was deemed sufficient to uphold the jury's verdict that appellant intended to assist in the murders of Adolfo Rodriguez and Isai Mares. Consequently, the court rejected appellant's second point of error. In his third and fourth points, appellant argued that the trial court improperly instructed the jury regarding the law of parties and transferred intent, which he objected to during the trial.

The appellant contends that the State failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify a jury instruction on the law of parties regarding capital murder, arguing that if he was a shooter, he acted individually and should not be held accountable for the actions of others. The court's charge allowed the jury to convict if it found the appellant was either the primary actor or a party to the offense. A jury instruction on the law of parties is warranted when evidence indicates the defendant encouraged or aided in the commission of the crime. The trial court may consider actions before, during, or after the offense to determine if the defendant shared a common intent. 

According to legal precedent, if evidence shows active participation by multiple individuals, the court should first examine the defendant's conduct alone. If this conduct could independently support a conviction, no instruction on the law of parties is necessary. However, if the defendant's actions alone are insufficient, the law of parties must be applied. The court found sufficient evidence, including the appellant’s actions and statements indicating he encouraged others, to justify the jury instruction on the law of parties, thereby ruling that the trial court did not err in its charge.

Regarding the transferred intent instruction, the appellant failed to articulate how the trial court erred or provide supporting legal authority, leading the appellate court to conclude that there was no basis to review this claim. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.