John C. Theus v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 01-08-00284-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; July 2, 2009; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

John C. Theus was convicted of murder by a jury and received a life sentence, with a finding that he used a firearm in the commission of the crime. The appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the admissibility of certain hearsay statements. The background reveals that on May 5, 2006, Theus, a member of the 59 Bounty Hunter “Bloods” gang, reported a burglary at a friend's apartment. After discovering one of his stolen shirts being worn by Leon Jones, Theus confronted and threatened Jones, demanding to know the whereabouts of David Harbour, the alleged thief.

Days later, Theus returned with a group, brandishing a .380 handgun. Jones fled in fear, while Harbour escaped through a window, after which gunshots were heard. Witnesses, including Jones and Catina Stewart, identified Theus as the gunman. Andre Stewart, another witness, described being held at gunpoint and later heard gunshots coming from a back bedroom where David Lipps was found dead. Although Stewart initially identified Theus in a photographic lineup, he hesitated during trial, stating that Theus only resembled the shooter and expressed reluctance to testify. The appellate court ultimately affirmed the conviction.

Detective M. Waters confirmed that the appellant was positively identified by Stewart in a photographic lineup and indicated the crime was gang-related, with implications that stealing gang colors is a significant offense. In a reluctant testimony, Anthony Harbour, deemed a hostile witness, recounted an incident where someone kicked in a door, leading him to flee through a window, while denying any knowledge of the appellant or Leon Jones. Harbour claimed police coerced him into signing a false statement and asserted that the appellant was not the gunman. Firearms examiner K. Downs identified the crime scene evidence as belonging to a .38 caliber revolver. The assistant medical examiner determined that David Lipps died from two gunshot wounds, one piercing the heart. Both the appellant and his girlfriend, Kristen Williams, testified, with Williams affirming the appellant's alibi for the weekend of the murder and denying his gang affiliation or any prior convictions. The appellant corroborated Williams' account but conceded a prior weapons conviction and a police report about a burglary made shortly before the shooting, which Williams disputed. 

The document outlines the standards for legal and factual sufficiency in evidence review, emphasizing that evidence should be viewed favorably towards the verdict. It states that the reviewing body does not weigh evidence or resolve factual conflicts, which is the role of the trier of fact, and that any inconsistencies should be resolved in favor of the verdict. In factual sufficiency, the evidence is assessed neutrally, with a verdict only overturned if the evidence is weak or unjust.

Under the first prong of Johnson, a conviction cannot be deemed “clearly wrong” or “manifestly unjust” based solely on personal disagreement with the jury's decision. Under the second prong, a conflict in evidence does not warrant a new trial unless the evidence overwhelmingly contradicts the jury's verdict. A factual-sufficiency review requires the court to identify evidence that undermines the jury's decision while refraining from substituting its judgment for that of the fact-finder. The fact-finder determines the weight of contradictory testimonial evidence based on credibility and demeanor evaluations. The standard for reviewing factual sufficiency is whether the jury, after considering all evidence neutrally, was rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the murder case at hand, the State needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant intentionally or knowingly caused the death of David Lipps by shooting him or intended to cause serious bodily injury through a dangerous act. The appellant contended that the evidence was insufficient as no witnesses directly saw him commit the act; however, circumstantial evidence can be adequate for establishing guilt, and eyewitness identification is not essential. Testimonies indicated that the appellant threatened a witness prior to the shooting and was identified as the gunman, with multiple accounts corroborating the sequence of events leading to Lipps's death. Viewing the evidence favorably towards the verdict, it was determined that a rational jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant caused Lipps's death. The court overruled the appellant’s first issue.

Appellant contends that the evidence against him is factually insufficient due to a lack of eyewitnesses, Harbour's testimony that he was not the gunman, and the alibi provided by him and his girlfriend. He argues that the State only demonstrated his presence at the crime scene while searching for Anthony, the victim, who was not the intended target. The court notes that eyewitness testimony is not a necessity for conviction and that the jury has the discretion to weigh contradictory testimonies. Despite Harbour's claim, Jones testified that appellant was indeed the shooter, and Andre Stewart positively identified appellant in a photographic lineup, stating the shooter entered a back bedroom before the shots were fired. The jury was not obligated to favor Harbour's testimony over other incriminating evidence, and their verdict implies they discredited at least some of Harbour's statements. 

Additionally, the jury could choose to believe or disbelieve testimonies from both Kristen Williams and appellant, as her credibility was undermined by cross-examination. Upon reviewing the evidence neutrally, the court concludes that the jury's decision to find appellant guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt was justified.

Regarding hearsay, appellant claims that a statement by Andre Stewart indicated a disagreement between Anthony Harbour and the shooter. However, to preserve this for appeal, a defendant must object, specify the grounds, and receive an adverse ruling. The trial court sustained appellant's objection and instructed the jury to disregard Stewart's statement, providing the relief requested, thus waiving any error for appeal. 

The court ultimately affirms the trial court's judgment.