Carlton Ray Champion, Jr. v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 12-16-00011-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; August 17, 2016; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Carlton Ray Champion, Jr. appeals his murder conviction concerning the death of Tyrone Underwood. He contests the sufficiency of evidence corroborating a jailhouse informant's testimony. The court affirms the conviction.

The State's case outlined several key pieces of evidence: Alvin Harold heard gunshots around 2:00 a.m. on January 26, 2015, near Texas College, followed by a crash. Laketha Alexander called 9-1-1 shortly after hearing the shots. Officer Joshua Smedley discovered Underwood dead in his vehicle, which had been shot at, containing $180 and $16. Shell casings and red paint flakes matching Underwood’s vehicle were found at a nearby driveway.

Investigation revealed Underwood had sustained multiple gunshot wounds, with the fatal shot originating more than three feet away. Dr. Stephen Hastings, who conducted the autopsy, confirmed the cause of death was significant blood loss from the wounds.

Detective Dennis Matthews found communications on Underwood’s cell phone with George Thomas, who had expressed interest in meeting Underwood. While Thomas lived near the crime scene, no evidence indicated they exchanged addresses. Thomas attempted to contact Underwood around 1:00 a.m. on January 26 but received no response. Detective Matthews noted Thomas's roommate mentioned a potential money-related motive, and Thomas appeared surprised by Underwood’s death.

Thomas cooperated with law enforcement by allowing access to his cell phone and providing a DNA sample. He reportedly moved out of state after the murder and denied involvement, ultimately being cleared of wrongdoing. Detective Erbaugh revealed that Underwood, a transgender woman dating "Carlton" from Texas College, was known as "Tyra." Testimony indicated that Texas College was near the crime scene. Friends of Underwood testified about her relationship with Appellant, noting that Underwood often spoke about Appellant but never mentioned Thomas. 

Underwood and Appellant deleted their dating profiles, but Appellant later reactivated his. There were signs of distrust between them, leading to an argument. Investigator Tarrant's testimony highlighted that messages exchanged between Underwood and Appellant indicated a confrontation over Appellant's dating profile shortly before the murder, with Underwood expressing anger. Text messages revealed that Underwood arrived at a meeting point first, and their conversation ended at 2:06 a.m. 

Detective Matthews confirmed that campus surveillance captured Appellant leaving his dorm around 2:13 a.m. and returning around 2:27 a.m., suggesting he could have been in the vicinity of the crime. Tarrant found no evidence of a meeting between Underwood and Appellant, but noted the timing of their text exchanges placed Appellant in the same area as the murder. During an interview, Appellant acknowledged knowing Underwood and communicating via Kik, but claimed he only met Underwood twice and asserted he never visited Underwood's apartment. He last communicated with Underwood around 11 p.m. on January 25, stating he fell asleep and did not meet Underwood. Notably, Appellant deleted the Kik application shortly before the interview, and a witness reported seeing a Black male acting suspiciously near the crime scene on January 27.

A witness observed a man seemingly searching for something, leading to a police search of the area and later of Appellant’s dorm room, where Appellant exhibited defensive behavior. He claimed to have last spoken with Underwood around 9:30 p.m. before his tablet died. Detective Elliott noted that Appellant did not admit to leaving his dorm, being in Underwood’s vehicle, or having a sexual relationship with Underwood, despite text messages suggesting their relationship was deteriorating. DNA analysis identified Appellant as the major contributor of DNA found in Underwood’s vehicle. A lead test on Appellant's jacket returned negative results. In jail, Ladarius Harris confronted Appellant about Underwood's murder, to which Appellant acknowledged accusations against him, stating that the police lacked substantial evidence. Harris claimed he sought justice for Underwood without any promises of assistance for his own charges. The jury ultimately convicted Appellant of murder, sentencing him to life imprisonment. 

Appellant argued that Harris's testimony lacked sufficient corroboration, asserting that no blood or weapon linked him to the crime and that there was no physical evidence placing him at the scene. He contended that the timeline of events made it implausible for him to have committed the murder. According to Texas law, a defendant’s conviction cannot rely solely on a jailhouse informant's testimony unless corroborated by additional evidence connecting the defendant to the crime. The sufficiency of such corroboration is assessed by excluding the informant's testimony and evaluating the remaining evidence in the context of the case's specifics.

Corroborating evidence does not need to establish the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but must allow rational jurors to connect the accused to the offense. The presence of the accused near the crime scene, coupled with suspicious circumstances, can provide sufficient corroboration. In this case, the accused's dorm was near the crime scene, and he directed a witness, Underwood, to meet him at a specific location shortly before the offense. Security footage showed the accused leaving his dorm shortly after texting Underwood, reinforcing the connection. The jury was presented with conflicting evidence regarding the accused's whereabouts and actions, including discrepancies between his statements and the security footage. 

Evidence such as attempts to conceal incriminating details, inconsistent statements, and implausible explanations were noted, including the accused denying a sexual relationship with Underwood, despite text messages indicating otherwise, and claiming he did not leave his dorm while footage showed him doing so. Furthermore, his DNA was found in Underwood's vehicle, contradicting his claim that it would not be present. 

Motive was also considered, with indications that Underwood was upset and distrusting of the accused, leading to a reasonable inference that the accused had both motive and opportunity to commit the murder. Physical evidence was not required to prove guilt, but the presence of the accused's DNA in the vehicle related to the crime supported the jury's findings.

The presence of DNA at a crime scene can suggest guilt, while its absence does not imply innocence. The jury inferred that Appellant likely deposited his DNA at or near the time of the murder, despite the analyst's inability to pinpoint the exact moment. Evidence presented included Appellant's connection to the crime scene and the victim, Underwood, as well as details regarding another individual, Thomas, who was considered a suspect but ultimately cleared of wrongdoing. The jury was justified in rejecting the idea of Thomas's involvement based on the evidence provided. The court concluded that the evidence against Appellant was substantial enough to connect him to the offense, dismissing his claims of mere suspicion. The trial court's judgment was affirmed, with no errors found in the proceedings.