Abey Belette Girma v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 05-14-00023-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; April 3, 2015; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Abey Belette Girma was convicted of capital murder for the shooting deaths of Lemma Yayehyirad and Desta Yenenesh on August 15, 2012, at their Dallas residence. Each victim sustained multiple gunshot wounds, with Yared shot in the head and chest and Salome shot in the face and chest. Witness Asmaru Mebrate, Yared's mother, heard the gunshots and saw a man approaching a black SUV after the incident. Detective Steve Hough collected evidence at the scene, including fired cartridge casings, but no weapons were recovered.

Prior to the shooting, Girma and a coworker, Lupaka Patrick Djungu-Sungu, spent time together. On the night of the shooting, Girma called Djungu-Sungu, sounding distressed and apologetic, but Djungu-Sungu could not meet him due to work obligations. Upon arriving at work, Djungu-Sungu noticed Girma driving a black SUV, which was unusual as drivers typically wore uniforms and drove company vehicles. Girma was sentenced to life in prison without parole, and he contended that the evidence did not establish his specific intent to kill the victims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

Appellant entered Djungu-Sungu's van, brandished a gun, and asserted control over Djungu-Sungu, instructing him to buckle his seatbelt and record a confession. Appellant claimed responsibility for shooting two people, expressing uncertainty about their survival, and threatened to kill his co-workers and boss due to perceived racism. Despite Djungu-Sungu's pleas to abandon the plan, appellant remained resolute, referencing a news report about the victims and outlining two scenarios based on their status. He exhibited erratic behavior, discussing a past romantic relationship with one victim and expressing regret over not using a silencer. Appellant then instructed Djungu-Sungu to drive to Deloitte University with the intention of carrying out further violence but changed his mind after Djungu-Sungu warned about surveillance cameras. They instead returned to the company’s airport staging area and later went to the main office, where appellant, still armed, requested time off from their boss, who refused. Following this, they left, with appellant ordering Djungu-Sungu to his personal vehicle and revealing their destination as Denver, Colorado, where he had contacts.

During the journey, they only stopped for gas, using Djungu-Sungu’s ATM card, and appellant initially denied him restroom breaks, forcing him to urinate outside. After some time, they switched drivers, but appellant continued to monitor Djungu-Sungu closely, threatening him if he acted inappropriately. Appellant received a call from his girlfriend during the trip, speaking in an unfamiliar language. After nearly 18-20 hours of driving, they reached Goodland, Kansas, where appellant sought to access an ATM at a nearby Wal-Mart to empty Djungu-Sungu's bank account and purchase disguises. As they approached the store, appellant hesitated, concerned about potential metal detectors.

Djungu-Sungu, fearing for his safety, informed the appellant about the presence of metal detectors in a store, prompting the appellant to leave his gun in the car. Inside, while Djungu-Sungu noticed the appellant holding car keys, he attempted to grab them but fell. In the ensuing chaos, Djungu-Sungu shouted that the appellant was a killer, eventually attracting the store manager's attention, who called the police. 

Separately, Asmale Teshome encountered the appellant in a church parking lot on August 16, 2012, where he engaged her in conversation and inquired about her personal life. Despite her attempts to deter him by mentioning her marriage, he persisted. The next day, she saw him again at the church, where he followed her inside and later interacted with her and her children after the service. Upon returning home, Teshome learned that the man she had seen was wanted for two murders in Dallas. 

When the appellant knocked on her door, Teshome, fearing for her safety, called the police. Officer Darrell Huntsman responded to her call, where she reported the appellant's threats and described his vehicle. Following this, a be-on-the-lookout (BOLO) alert was issued, leading to the appellant's arrest nearby as he drove a blue Nissan Versa with Pennsylvania plates.

After the appellant was taken into custody, Officer Huntsman informed Detective Yeric and discovered that Dallas police were searching for a nine millimeter handgun. During an inventory search of the appellant's vehicle, Aurora officers found a Taurus pistol in the glove box, a handgun case under the driver's seat, and a brown satchel with a laptop. Additionally, a box of ammunition and an extra magazine were located in the vehicle. Detective Hough revealed that a search of the appellant's apartment uncovered an instruction manual for a Taurus nine millimeter handgun. Forensic examiner Heather Thomas determined that casings and bullets from the crime scene matched the firearm found in the appellant’s vehicle.

Detective Yeric, the lead investigator, received a report from Djungu-Sungu about a kidnapping by a man who had killed two people in Dallas. Following this, he sought an arrest warrant for the appellant and a search warrant for the apartment of the appellant's girlfriend. After the appellant's arrest in Aurora, Detective Yeric interviewed him, during which the appellant confessed to shooting Yared and Salome. He recounted a history with Salome, detailing their relationship and his suspicions about Yared. The appellant described a confrontation at Yared's home, which escalated into him pulling out his gun and shooting, stating he did not intend to kill anyone but was prepared for conflict.

The appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence centers on whether he had the specific intent to kill Salome. The review of this challenge requires considering all evidence favorably to the verdict to determine if a rational fact finder could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the essential elements of the offense were met.

In Jackson v. Virginia, the court established that the fact finder is responsible for resolving testimony conflicts, weighing evidence, and making reasonable inferences, with a presumption that any conflicts favor the verdict. In this case, the appellant was indicted for capital murder, defined as intentionally or knowingly causing the death of an individual, and specifically, for murdering multiple persons in a single transaction. To prove capital murder, the State must demonstrate a specific intent to kill for each victim. Intent can be inferred from the defendant's actions and circumstances, particularly when a deadly weapon is used. The evidence showed the appellant shot two victims multiple times at close range, which allowed the jury to reasonably infer intent to kill. Despite the appellant's claim of no intent to kill, the jury was free to accept or reject this assertion. The evidence supported a conclusion of capital murder, leading to the affirmation of the conviction by the appellate court.