Eric Christopher Everroad v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-99-00013-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; November 17, 1999; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Eric Christopher Everroad was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment and a $10,000 fine by a jury, which also found that he used a deadly weapon in the commission of the crime. The case arose after Everroad bludgeoned the victim, Heather, to death with a jack handle in his apartment after spending time together. Following the murder, he attempted to clean the scene and later confessed to the crime, claiming he was reacting to a nightmare about an abusive uncle. Everroad raised two points of error on appeal: the improper admission of evidence related to handcuffs found under his bed, which were not listed in the search warrant, and the state's jury argument. The court clarified that a search warrant must specify items to be seized, and although Everroad's motion to suppress was overruled, the search warrant legally allowed for the seizure of evidence related to the offense. The appeal was ultimately affirmed.

The appellant argues that handcuffs do not qualify as "specifically described property" under a warrant that authorized the seizure of "ligatures." The court disagrees, noting that the affiant's affidavit established that "ligatures" can refer to items used to bind a victim, which includes handcuffs. The ordinary definition of "ligature" supports this interpretation. The affidavit referred to "ligatures and items capable of tying," allowing the court to conclude that handcuffs fell within this description. Consequently, the photograph of the handcuffs was admissible as evidence.

Additionally, the court ruled that even if handcuffs were not explicitly included in the definition of "ligature," their seizure was permissible as "mere evidence" related to the crime under investigation. The police had a valid search warrant, and the handcuffs were found in a location where officers might reasonably search for the enumerated items, thus justifying their seizure. The trial court did not err in admitting the photograph of the handcuffs.

In the appellant's second point of error regarding the State's closing argument, he objected to the assertion that no one believed his explanation for the victim's death, including his first defense counsel. The court noted that proper jury arguments must summarize evidence, provide reasonable deductions from it, respond to opposing arguments, or make pleas for law enforcement. Counsel has broad latitude in drawing reasonable inferences from the record. The trial court did not err in overruling the objection to the closing argument.

The State argued that its statements during trial were proper summaries of evidence and reasonable deductions. This was supported by testimony from Patrick Haberman, appellant's roommate, who recounted a call from the appellant claiming innocence, suggesting a break-in and that he awoke covered in blood. Haberman expressed skepticism, believing the appellant was fabricating a story. Testimony from Stacy Pankratz, appellant's girlfriend, revealed two conflicting accounts from the appellant: one where he claimed the events occurred in a dream and another where he suggested a pool player committed the murder, and he got blood on his clothes while intervening. The appellant also recounted these two versions to his stepfather, indicating a lack of belief from Pankratz and others regarding his dream defense, which led him to concoct a second story. He admitted to fabricating this version to evade responsibility and reiterated that no one believed either explanation. The court noted that jury arguments should not promote speculation or imply reliance on attorneys' expertise. However, the State's argument was grounded in the record, as the appellant's lack of credibility was evident from his own admissions. Ultimately, the court overruled the appellant's issues on appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence.