Byron Orrick Outlaw v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 02-06-00447-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; August 21, 2008; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Byron Orrick Outlaw was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He challenges the factual sufficiency of the evidence regarding his identity as the shooter, specifically questioning whether he was the one who pulled the trigger. The incident occurred on February 27, 2006, when Ervin Flint, Jr. was fatally shot in front of a residence in Wichita Falls, Texas. Investigators found spent shell casings and a .30 caliber M1 carbine rifle linked to the shooting, which confirmed the bullet that killed Flint was fired from that weapon. Outlaw acknowledges the legal sufficiency of the evidence but contests its factual sufficiency.

The court outlines its standard of review for factual sufficiency, emphasizing the need to assess evidence neutrally and defer to the jury's determinations regarding credibility and conflicting evidence. To overturn a conviction on these grounds, it must be shown that the evidence significantly contradicts the verdict or that the jury's determination is manifestly unjust. The court affirms that it cannot substitute its judgment for that of the jury simply because it might disagree with the outcome or find reasonable doubts about the evidence. The definition of murder under Texas law includes intentionally or knowingly causing death or intending to cause serious bodily injury that results in death. The appellate court ultimately affirms the conviction.

A jury may infer knowledge or intent from the accused's actions, remarks, and the surrounding context. Specific intent to kill can be deduced from the use of a deadly weapon unless it is clear that serious injury was not a likely result. Guilt may be established through either direct or circumstantial evidence, and the jury can make reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence to determine facts. The identity of a perpetrator can also be proven without eyewitness identification.

On February 27, 2006, Outlaw, a KEP gang member, called former gang member Clifton Wiley, stating he was visiting and had just been shot at by Raymond McKinney of the rival Hoovas gang. Outlaw arrived in a blue 1997 Grand Marquis and recounted the incident, which was corroborated by Orondae Malone from the Hoovas, who witnessed shots fired at Outlaw's car. Outlaw then opened his trunk revealing a rifle in a black guitar case and expressed his intent to retaliate against those who shot at him. Despite Wiley warning him about the potential consequences of possessing the rifle, Outlaw insisted on taking action.

After leaving Wiley's residence, Outlaw received a text from 'Nikki' and subsequently spoke with McKinney or Malone. He then retrieved the rifle again, stating the consequences were solely his responsibility. Following a brief absence, Outlaw returned to Wiley, who later tried to warn him about other gang members nearby. As Wiley approached his car, gunshots rang out from behind him. Malone reported gunfire directed at a residence shortly after Outlaw's call and observed multiple shots hitting the house, leading to Flint being found injured on the ground afterwards.

Outlaw approached Wiley's car at a garage and requested to be taken to the Patterson residence shortly before Flint was fatally shot. Eyewitnesses Jeanette Newman and Robert Perry heard gunshots from the garage and saw a person, identified as Outlaw, exit the garage and leave in a yellowish car. Testimony indicated it was a clear day when the shooting occurred. Gary Van Cook, Jr. testified to seeing a rifle in Outlaw’s car shortly after the shooting. Worth Culberson, who managed the garage, noted leaving a white car's trunk open earlier that day. Evidence collected by Officer Greg Burt included nearly thirty spent .30 caliber shell casings and a .30 caliber carbine rifle found in the white car's trunk. Officer Siobian Callahan matched Outlaw's fingerprint to the trunk, and ballistic analysis confirmed the bullet that killed Flint was fired from the same rifle. Outlaw contends the jury’s decision was unjust, claiming the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was unreliable and selective. He points to inconsistencies in witness accounts, lack of direct evidence linking him to the shooting, and suggests the possibility of other suspects with access to the garage. Key arguments include discrepancies in eyewitness testimony, questions about the circumstances of the fingerprint evidence, and challenges to the credibility of the witnesses regarding their ability to identify him or accurately measure distances at the scene.

Wiley's correspondence with the district attorney while incarcerated suggests a potential motive to lie, as he expressed a desire to testify for the State to reunite with his family. Outlaw challenges the sufficiency of evidence supporting his conviction, but his analysis conflicts with the factual sufficiency standard, which mandates a neutral evaluation of all evidence rather than isolated examination of State witnesses’ testimonies. The jury's role as the sole judge of witness credibility allows them to accept or reject parts of testimonies, leading them to believe the evidence implicating Outlaw in Flint's murder. The presence of circumstantial evidence does not diminish its sufficiency, as both circumstantial and direct evidence are equally valid for proving identity. The jury had rational grounds to convict Outlaw beyond a reasonable doubt, and the evidence was not so weak as to render the conviction clearly wrong or unjust. Thus, the court affirms the trial court's judgment, rejecting Outlaw's claims.