Ismael Diaz v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 07-06-00069-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; March 28, 2007; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Ismael M. Diaz appeals his capital murder conviction and life sentence from the 364th District Court in Lubbock County. He argues that the trial court erred in allowing testimony about his demeanor after police informed him of the victim Hector Villarreal's death and in denying his motion for a directed verdict. The appellate court affirms the conviction.

The factual background reveals that on April 17, 2005, Diaz visited the Copper Caboose restaurant to meet Jason Delarosa. After a delayed meeting, an altercation ensued as they left in Delarosa's vehicle. Villarreal, who was also present, fled after being stabbed by Diaz and later died from the injuries. Witnesses observed Diaz in a struggle with Delarosa, allegedly making a stabbing motion and taking money from Delarosa’s pocket before attempting to flee.

Regarding the testimony on Diaz's demeanor, the court found that Diaz did not preserve the issue for appeal, as his trial objection focused on the relevance and materiality of the testimony, rather than on his right to silence. This lack of specificity in preserving the complaint led to a waiver of the appeal on that matter.

In addressing the sufficiency of evidence for the directed verdict, the appellate court noted that the standard for review is the legal sufficiency of the evidence. The court ultimately ruled that the evidence presented at trial sufficiently supported the conviction.

Appellant challenges the factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict, prompting a review of both legal and factual sufficiency. The review begins with legal sufficiency, assessing whether any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the verdict. Capital murder is defined as committing murder during the course of committing or attempting to commit robbery. Robbery is characterized by unlawfully appropriating property with the intent to deprive the owner while causing bodily injury or threatening imminent harm. 

Appellant argues that for the conviction to be legally sufficient, the murder victim and robbery victim must be the same person, citing Hall v. State to support this claim. However, this interpretation is incorrect for three reasons: Hall does not require the robbery and murder victims to be the same; appellant's interpretation adds an unnecessary element to the capital murder statute; and existing Texas precedent, specifically Garcia and Rougeau, establishes that the victims do not need to be identical. Furthermore, appellant contends that the intent to commit robbery arose after the assault on Villarreal, arguing this undermines the legal sufficiency of the evidence for capital murder.

The appellant argues that the intent for robbery must be established before or during the murder, referencing an unpublished opinion in *Esquivel v. State*. However, this interpretation is incorrect, as *Esquivel* confirms that sufficient evidence exists if robbery follows immediately after the murder. The fact finder can infer intent from the accused's actions. This aligns with the principle from *Cooper v. State*, which states that theft following an assault supports an inference of intent to facilitate theft. The State contends that the appellant intended to rob Delarosa, knowing he had money, and attacked Villarreal to enable the robbery. Testimony indicated that after attacking Villarreal, the appellant was seen taking money from Delarosa, providing adequate evidence for a jury to conclude that the robbery was planned before the assault on Villarreal. The jury has the authority to assess witness credibility and resolve inconsistencies, leading to a rational verdict that the evidence was legally sufficient. 

In assessing factual sufficiency, the court reviews the evidence neutrally to determine if the jury's finding was justified beyond a reasonable doubt, deferring to the jury's determinations unless the evidence strongly contradicts the verdict. The court found no objective basis undermining the jury's decision and concluded that the jury was justified in finding the appellant guilty of capital murder, as the record presented conflicting accounts of the events.

Delarosa's testimony indicates that the fight began with appellant as the attacker, which the appellant claims undermines the verdict. However, several key points emerge from the evidence review: 1) The police crime scene analyst's testimony does not support appellant's assertion that the attack on Delarosa did not start in the car; 2) Witness testimonies, both inside and outside the restaurant, corroborate Delarosa's account of an ongoing assault by appellant, first against Villarreal and then against Delarosa; 3) Appellant's claim that Villarreal was experiencing cocaine-induced anxiety is unsupported, resting only on one witness's observation of Villarreal sweating, while the jury also heard that Villarreal had been working in a hot kitchen. A comprehensive review of the evidence reveals conflicting narratives about the incident, with the jury ultimately resolving these conflicts against the appellant. The jury’s decision is deemed rational, providing no objective basis to overturn the verdict. Consequently, the appellant's claim of insufficient evidence is rejected, and the trial court's judgment is affirmed.