T.J. Jones v. The State of Texas
944 S.W.2d 642 (1996)
Rule of Law:
A jury may infer a defendant's intent to kill from the use of a deadly weapon, and an appellate court will not disturb this finding unless the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. This standard of factual sufficiency review, previously applied in non-capital cases, is extended to capital cases.
Facts:
- The appellant and his accomplices planned to steal a car, referred to as a 'jack'.
- To accomplish this, the appellant borrowed a .357 revolver.
- They located a seventy-five-year-old victim who was backing his car out of his driveway.
- The appellant approached the victim with the gun drawn and ordered him out of the car.
- After the victim exited the car, he refused the appellant's command to get back in, stating that the appellant would have to kill him to get the car.
- The appellant then shot the victim once in the forehead from a distance of at least two feet, killing him.
- The appellant and his accomplices fled in the victim's car.
- Shortly after, the appellant was apprehended by police with the murder weapon in his pocket.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellant was charged with capital murder for a murder committed in the course of a robbery.
- Following a trial in a Texas state court, a jury found the appellant guilty of capital murder.
- During the punishment phase, the jury answered the special issues in a manner that required the imposition of a death sentence.
- The trial court sentenced the appellant to death.
- The appellant's case was brought before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on automatic appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is evidence demonstrating a defendant planned a robbery with a deadly weapon, shot the victim in the forehead after the victim resisted, and used a gun that required an intentional trigger pull, legally and factually sufficient to prove the defendant acted with the specific intent to kill, despite his claim that he only intended to scare the victim?
Opinions:
Majority - Meyers, Judge
Yes, the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to prove the appellant acted with the specific intent to kill. The court's reasoning is twofold. First, for legal sufficiency under the Jackson v. Virginia standard, the court holds that a rational jury could infer the intent to kill from the appellant's use of a deadly weapon. This inference is strengthened by evidence that the bullet struck the victim between the eyes, the firearm required an intentional trigger pull, and a cellmate testified that the appellant admitted to shooting the victim in response to the victim's defiance. Second, the court extends the Clewis standard for factual sufficiency review to capital cases. Under this standard, the court weighs all evidence and concludes that while the appellant's confession claimed the shooting was accidental, this was contradicted by probative evidence of intent. Giving appropriate deference to the jury's role in weighing credibility, the court finds the verdict is not 'manifestly unjust' or 'clearly wrong'.
Analysis:
This case is significant for formally extending the Clewis factual sufficiency review standard to capital cases, thereby providing an additional layer of appellate scrutiny in death penalty litigation. However, the court's application of the standard demonstrates a high degree of deference to the jury's findings, especially regarding the defendant's mental state. The ruling reinforces the powerful legal principle that intent can be inferred from conduct, and a defendant's self-serving claims of accident can be overcome by circumstantial evidence such as the nature of the weapon, the location of the wound, and witness testimony about the defendant's statements.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: T.J. Jones v. The State of Texas (1996)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"