Nathan Darrell Neighbors A/K/A Nathann Hercules Neighbors v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 02-07-00176-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; June 12, 2008; Texas; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Nathan Darrell Neighbors, also known as Nathann Hercules Neighbors, appeals his felony conviction for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. He asserts three points: the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, and the trial court erred by not submitting a lesser included offense of robbery to the jury. The incident occurred on March 15, 2003, when the owner of Paradise Liquors and an employee were confronted by a masked man with a gun who forced them to open a safe. During a struggle over the weapon, the employee managed to injure the assailant, who fled despite the attempts to detain him. The case went cold until DNA evidence from the crime scene matched Neighbors' DNA in 2006, leading to his indictment. At trial, the jury convicted him of aggravated robbery, sentencing him to fifty-five years in prison. Neighbors' appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence tying him to the crime.

The standard of review for legal sufficiency of evidence in a conviction requires that all evidence be viewed in favor of the prosecution to ascertain if any rational trier of fact could find the essential crime elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The trier of fact is responsible for resolving testimonial conflicts, weighing evidence, and drawing inferences, with the court refraining from re-evaluating the credibility or weight of evidence. Legal sufficiency is measured against a hypothetically correct jury charge that accurately reflects the law and the elements of the offense as outlined in the indictment.

In contrast, factual sufficiency is assessed by examining the evidence neutrally, without favoring either party. The inquiry focuses on whether the supporting evidence is so weak that the fact-finder’s decision is clearly wrong or manifestly unjust, or if conflicting evidence overwhelmingly outweighs the evidence supporting the conviction. A reversal on factual sufficiency grounds requires a clear objective basis in the record indicating that the evidence contradicts the verdict, rather than a mere sense of reasonable doubt or disagreement with the jury's conclusions.

Judicial review requires deference to the jury's findings, particularly regarding the credibility of contradictory testimonial evidence, which is often determined by the jury's observation of witnesses. An opinion addressing factual sufficiency must discuss pertinent evidence supporting the appellant's claims and explicitly state why a finding is factually insufficient if reversed. To secure a conviction for aggravated robbery, the State must demonstrate that the defendant, during a theft, knowingly threatened another with imminent bodily injury while using a deadly weapon. The appellant contended that the evidence was insufficient because witnesses could not identify him as the robber. However, DNA evidence is admissible to establish identity. At trial, witnesses could not identify the robber due to a mask and blood obscuring his face. Evidence collected post-incident included a ski mask and blood samples, which were later matched to the appellant's DNA profile, with a statistical likelihood of one in 9.5 quadrillion that he was not the donor. The DNA evidence conclusively linked the appellant to the robbery, affirming that a rational jury could find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of aggravated robbery.

The court determined that the evidence supporting the appellant's conviction was sufficient, as it was not so weak that a reasonable juror's decision could be deemed clearly wrong, nor did conflicting evidence significantly outweigh the evidence supporting the conviction. The appellant's first and second points were overruled. 

In regard to the appellant's third point, which claimed the trial court erred by not submitting the lesser included offense of robbery to the jury, a two-step analysis was applied. First, the court confirmed that robbery qualifies as a lesser included offense of aggravated robbery under Texas law, as it fulfills the criteria outlined in Article 37.09 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. This determination is based on a legal comparison of the elements of the charged offense and the lesser offense, independent of trial evidence.

Second, the court examined whether there was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find the appellant guilty only of robbery, potentially due to the claim that the gun used was not capable of firing and thus might not be classified as a deadly weapon. The Texas Penal Code defines robbery as occurring during the commission of theft with intent to control property, involving bodily injury or threats of bodily injury. Aggravated robbery requires the use or exhibition of a deadly weapon. The court acknowledged that the appellant met the first requirement for the lesser included offense, and it was necessary to assess whether there was evidence to support the claim that, if guilty, he was guilty only of robbery. The definition of a deadly weapon under Texas law was also referenced, indicating that a firearm or any object capable of causing serious injury qualifies.

If the State demonstrates at trial that a firearm was employed during a robbery, that firearm qualifies as a deadly weapon under statutory definitions, as established in **Thomas v. State** and **Walker v. State**. The State is not obligated to prove that the firearm was operable in a lethal manner. In a relevant case, a .45 automatic was deemed a deadly weapon despite being inoperable because it was designed to inflict death or serious injury. In the current case, although the firearm Corral attempted to use did not discharge, it was confirmed as operable by a police range master after being collected by an investigator. Thus, regardless of its functionality at the time of the robbery, the firearm is classified as a deadly weapon. Since the appellant exhibited a deadly weapon during the robbery of the Paradise Liquor store, the trial court correctly refused to submit a lesser charge of robbery to the jury. The appellate court upheld the trial court's judgment after overruling the appellant’s arguments.