Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Dwight Alexander v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 10-90-00120-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; May 30, 1991; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In Alexander v. State, the appellant, Dwight Alexander, was convicted of attempted capital murder, receiving a seventy-five-year prison sentence and a $10,000 fine. The court addressed several issues: the alleged defectiveness of the indictment, the admissibility of hearsay evidence, the status of a key witness as an accomplice, and the sufficiency of evidence supporting the conviction. The incident involved Johnny Taylor, who was shot during a robbery while delivering pizzas. Eyewitnesses provided conflicting accounts of the events, with one identifying Alexander as the shooter and another noting that the group did not discuss robbery prior to the attack. Alexander contended that the indictment was fatally defective for not naming the robbery victim. The court clarified that jurisdiction relies on an indictment's presentment, and defects must be objected to before trial commencement, or they are waived for appeal. The indictment mentioned Taylor as the victim of the attempted capital murder, although it did not explicitly state the name of the robbery victim. The appellant's argument centered on his claim that this omission deprived him of the necessary notice to prepare his defense. The ruling referenced legal precedents establishing that, while certain details are not required for capital murder charges, knowing the identity of the property owner is crucial for a proper defense. In King v. State, the court held that an indictment must provide sufficient factual allegations to prevent double jeopardy and inform the defendant of the charges. The court reversed King’s conviction due to insufficient specificity in the indictment. It emphasized that the validity of an indictment cannot be determined solely by trial evidence. The absence of a critical element is a substantive defect, while failure to specify facts does not meet the criteria for defects outlined in Articles 27.08 and 27.09 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant's motion to quash was denied because it did not identify a valid defect in the indictment. Furthermore, the appellant argued that the indictment's phrasing "during the course of" was flawed compared to "in the course of." However, the court ruled that such objections must be raised before trial, which the appellant failed to do, thus preserving nothing for review. The appellant also challenged the admission of hearsay evidence regarding discussions about the robbery, which the court found did not constitute hearsay, as it did not involve statements made by a third party for the truth of the matter asserted. Regarding the status of witness Hugh Davis, the court clarified that he was not an accomplice witness in the appellant's capital murder trial, as he could not be prosecuted for that charge. The court overruled claims of insufficient corroboration of Davis's testimony. Lastly, the appellant contended that the court did not instruct the jury on the law of parties and argued that the evidence did not support a conviction for murder occurring in conjunction with robbery. The court held that the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, as the jury was properly instructed on the elements of murder and capital murder. The court defined theft as the unlawful appropriation of another's corporeal personal property with the intent to deprive the owner of that property, and defined appropriation as acquiring or exercising control over property. The jury was authorized to convict the Appellant if it found that he intentionally shot Taylor while committing or attempting to commit robbery. The sufficiency of evidence is assessed based on the jury's charge. Favorable evidence for the jury's verdict includes the Appellant shooting Taylor three times from behind, discussions within the group about robbing Taylor, and the subsequent theft of Taylor's property by group members. This evidence supported a rational conclusion that the Appellant shot Taylor while attempting robbery. The court overruled point two and affirmed the judgment.