Mark Rios v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 13-04-00278-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; October 6, 2005; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Mark Rios was indicted for the murder of Angel Medina, who was killed in a drive-by shooting on August 6, 2003, along with four co-defendants. Rios, along with co-defendants Judas Tamayo Leal and Christopher Gutierrez, was tried jointly and found guilty. Rios appeals, challenging the sufficiency of evidence supporting his conviction. The court reviewed the evidence and found it both legally and factually sufficient.

Under Texas Penal Code Section 19.02(b), murder can be established if an individual intentionally or knowingly causes death, intends to cause serious injury leading to death, or commits a felony resulting in death. Although the indictment did not explicitly charge Rios under the law of parties, the jury was instructed on this law, which allows for conviction based on participation in the crime, even if not as the principal actor. The court noted that the law of parties does not need to be included in the indictment, provided there is adequate jury instruction.

Rios contends the jury should not have received this instruction, but the court upheld the conviction based on the sufficiency of evidence establishing Rios's guilt as a party to the murder. The law permits extending criminal responsibility to those who aid or encourage the commission of the offense, regardless of whether they directly committed it. The court cited legal precedents affirming that participation can encompass various levels of involvement, reinforcing Rios's accountability in the crime.

In McIntosh v. State, the court establishes that participation as a party in an offense can be inferred from the defendant's actions before, during, and after the crime, as well as from circumstantial evidence. The legal sufficiency of evidence is assessed by viewing it favorably to the verdict, determining if a rational jury could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, Angel Medina was murdered in a drive-by shooting involving multiple firearms and vehicles, with eyewitnesses identifying the appellant in one of the cars shortly before the shooting. Although the appellant did not fire the fatal shot from a 12-gauge shotgun, the law does not require proof of who fired the fatal shot for conviction. Instead, the focus is on whether the defendant intended to assist in the murder. The evidence showed that the appellant fired a handgun during the incident, supporting the conclusion that he intended to promote or assist the murder. As a result, the court overruled the appellant's legal sufficiency challenge. Additionally, factual sufficiency is evaluated neutrally, without favoring either party.

The determination of whether the proof of guilt is insufficient hinges on two criteria: whether the evidence is so weak that it undermines confidence in the jury's decision, or whether it is outweighed by contrary evidence. A verdict is considered clearly wrong if it shocks the conscience or reveals bias. The court may disagree with the jury's verdict even if supportive evidence exists. The appellant did not present any evidence that significantly contradicts the proof of guilt, nor did they identify exonerative evidence. Instead, the appellant's challenge was based on the assertion that the evidence was weak enough to question the jury's confidence. After reviewing the evidence in a neutral light, the court found it sufficient to uphold the jury's verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the factual-sufficiency challenge was overruled, and the trial court's judgment was affirmed.