Affirm and Opinion Filed July 29, 2013 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00631-CR 

JZACQUANE HICKMAN, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F10-60332-P 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices FitzGerald, Francis, and Lewis 

Opinion by Justice Francis 

A jury convicted Jzacquane Hickman of capital murder, and the trial court assessed a 

mandatory life sentence without parole. In his sole issue, appellant contends the trial court 

reversibly erred by allowing the prosecutor to make an improper jury argument. We affirm. 

 In the early morning hours of September 6, 2010, fifteen-year-old Sasha Bernal and her 

ex-boyfriend, Kenneth Moore, were shot multiple times; Moore died from his wounds. At trial, 

Bernal testified Moore was a drug dealer who sold “weed.” She said she was in the back 

bedroom when someone came into the house. She could hear Moore talking to someone and, 

after a couple of minutes, she heard gunshots. In an attempt to hide, Bernal knelt beside the bed. 

Moore ran into the bedroom; he was bleeding and had been shot. The shooter followed him and 
 2

shot Bernal in the head. Bernal was also shot two more times, and Moore was shot several more 

times. Bernal and Moore were lying beside each other on the floor, and a second man came into 

the room. The men checked Moore’s pockets and left. Bernal did not get up immediately 

because she was scared. At some point, Moore stopped breathing. Bernal said she then tried to 

walk to her friend’s house down the street to get help. She collapsed, and a man helped her and 

called the police. Bernal was taken to the hospital. 

While in the hospital, Bernal said she talked to the police and told them she could 

identify the person who shot her. She described him as “bright,” or having “light skin,” and said 

he had a BMR tattoo on his left forearm. She told the police she recognized him as someone she 

had seen several times in the neighborhood; at trial, she said she had also seen him before at 

Moore’s house. The police showed her a photographic lineup, and she selected appellant’s 

photograph. At trial, Bernal identified the appellant. 

Bernal said she knew Moore as “Marvin,” “Jaw,” and “Rude Boy,” but she did not know 

him by “Jamaican Marvin.” She acknowledged that “all he did” was “sling dope.” She also 

acknowledged Moore had been robbed at some point before his murder. She was asked about 

inconsistencies between her testimony and her statement to the police. Specifically, in her police 

statement, she said she was in the back bedroom when she heard the door open. She said she 

walked in the kitchen and saw a black man, who she identified at trial as appellant, talking to 

Moore. In the statement, she said the man pulled a gun and shot twice at Moore. She said 

Moore ran into the bedroom and pushed her down. At trial, Bernal clarified she never left the 

bedroom during the shooting but could see appellant shoot Moore from where she was seated on 

the bed. She said Moore did not push her down when he came in the room, because she was 

already kneeling on the floor. Bernal said she might not have been “clear on everything” in the 
 3

statement because she was unable to write. Bernal said she would never forget the person who 

shot her because she was looking at him. She acknowledged BMR stands for “Blood Money 

Records,” and said she “guess[ed] so” when asked if Moore had a lot of enemies. Bernal said 

that at the time of the shootings, Moore had a gun on the bed. She called it a “chopper” because 

it was “big.” 

A crime scene analyst testified he found two types of cartridge casings in the house, 

meaning two different weapons were used in the shootings. Cartridge casings were found in the 

living room, kitchen, near the bedroom door, and in the bedroom itself. The medical examiner 

testified Moore sustained seven gunshot wounds to his aorta, lung, liver, and stomach. 

Detective Steven David testified he met with Bernal while she was in the hospital and 

took her statement. He put together a photographic lineup for Bernal. He selected photographs 

of men who looked like appellant rather than people from the neighborhood who had a BMR 

tattoo but looked nothing like appellant. Once Bernal identified appellant, he prepared an arrest 

warrant. When appellant was arrested five days after the murder, his BMR tattoo had been 

recently covered by a fresh tattoo. Detective David could tell the tattoo was recent because of 

the “little blood scabs” on his arm. He agreed with defense counsel’s characterization of Moore 

as a “pretty notorious dope slinger.” When asked by defense counsel if the police had a “long 

list of suspects” that had been interviewed in the case that “had nothing to do with BMR” with 

“motives and reasons” to kill Moore, Detective David acknowledged he had talked to numerous 

people. He also agreed that his notes showed “a whole bunch of names” with “different 

motivations” to kill Moore. But, other than appellant, none of the other people he talked to had a 

BMR tattoo on his forearm nor did any have a fresh tattoo covering a BMR tattoo. Finally, 

Detective David believed a robbery was in progress when Moore was shot, given the information 
 4

provided by Bernal. The gun, or “chopper,” that was on the bed at the time of the shootings was 

missing. Detective David believed it was an AK-47 assault rifle. He was never able to identify 

the second suspect. 

Detective Barrett Nelson testified he worked in the Dallas gang unit for fourteen years. 

He was familiar with BMR, or “Blood Money Records,” which he said was a “[s]mall group of 

individuals.” During the murder investigation, Detective David contacted him for assistance in 

locating appellant to serve the arrest warrant. Detective Nelson said he talked to appellant’s 

family and friends and printed out wanted posters, which he placed throughout the neighborhood 

and in locations where BMR members were likely to hang out. He found appellant five days 

later and arrested him. At the time, he said appellant had Vaseline over the area of a fresh tattoo 

that was covering up his BMR tattoo. 

In his sole issue, appellant contends the trial court reversibly erred by overruling his 

objection to the following closing argument by the prosecutor: 

Ladies and gentlemen, “greed,” for lack of a better word, is good. 

Mike Douglas said that in a movie, Wall Street. That’s what this case is 

about. 

This case is about Jamaican Marvin slinging dope as an outsider in a 

neighborhood he didn’t really belong in. 

And I’ll tell you what they did: They warned him three times, robbed him 

three times, and then they finally killed him. 

You know why? Greed. He’s taken their money. 

That’s the whole motivation behind this case. You want a motive that we 

don’t have to give you? There it is. Who’s controlling the money in the 

neighborhood? Certainly not this outsider, certainly not this Jamaican Marvin. 

Why would BMR let him in there to sell? 

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Judge, this is outside the record and we object 

to his argument. 
 5

The trial court overruled the objection, and the prosecutor moved on to arguing about proving the 

elements of the case and whether Bernal was a credible witness. 

 Proper jury argument must fall within one of four general areas: summation of the 

evidence, reasonable deduction from the evidence, answer to argument of opposing counsel, and 

pleas for law enforcement. Brown v. State, 270 S.W.3d 564, 570 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). A 

prosecutor may not use closing arguments to present evidence that is outside the record. 

Freeman v. State, 340 S.W.3d 717, 728 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1099 

(2012). Improper references to facts that are neither in evidence nor inferable from the evidence 

are generally designed to arouse the passion and prejudice of the jury and, as such, are 

inappropriate. Id. 

 Here, the evidence showed Moore was a drug dealer, and Detective David agreed with 

defense counsel’s characterization that Moore was a “pretty notorious dope slinger.” Although 

police talked with other suspects “who had nothing to do with BMR,” only appellant had a BMR 

tattoo and was identified by Bernal. Detective Nelson, who worked in the Dallas Police 

Department’s gang unit for fourteen years, was familiar with BMR, which stood for “Blood 

Money Records.” Other evidence showed that Moore had been robbed in the past and that the 

incident resulting in his death involved a robbery. Before the shooters left, they checked 

Moore’s pockets and also took a weapon that was on the bed. Given this evidence, we cannot 

conclude the prosecutor made an unreasonable deduction from the evidence when she argued 

Moore was killed by members of the BMR gang because of money. 

 But even if the argument was improper, the error is not reversible. Improper argument of 

this type is nonconstitutional in nature, and a nonconstitutional error “that does not affect 

substantial rights must be disregarded.” TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(b); Freeman, 340 S.W.3d at 728. 
 6

To determine whether appellant’s substantial rights were affected, we balance the severity of the 

misconduct, that is, the prejudicial effect, any curative measures, and the certainty of conviction 

absent the misconduct. Freeman, 340 S.W.3d at 728. 

 Initially, we note the trial court admonished the jury before arguments began that 

“anything that the attorneys say in closing arguments is not evidence. Arguments are meant to 

reflect what they understand the evidence to be.” The complained-of argument here was brief. 

Its substance went to appellant’s motivation, which, as the prosecutor noted, was not an element 

of the offense or something the State had to prove. Once the trial court overruled the objection, 

the prosecutor immediately moved on to another subject. Viewing the argument as a whole, we 

cannot conclude appellant was prejudiced by the prosecutor’s comments. 

Further, the objection to this particular argument was overruled, so no curative instruction 

was given. However, the evidence in this case was strong and included eyewitness testimony 

that appellant was the shooter. This was not the first time Bernal had seen appellant; she 

recognized appellant from seeing him several times in the neighborhood and at Moore’s house. 

Bernal identified him in a photographic lineup and at trial. Although she did not know 

appellant’s name, she was able to give police a distinguishing feature: the BMR tattoo on his 

forearm. When appellant was arrested five days after the shooting, he had tried to cover up his 

tattoo with a fresh tattoo. Given the brevity of the comments, the lack of prejudice, and the 

strength of the evidence in this case, we cannot conclude the prosecutor’s argument regarding 

appellant’s motivation for killing Moore substantially influenced the jury’s verdict against 

appellant. Consequently, appellant’s substantial rights were not affected. See TEX. R. APP. P.

44.2(b). We overrule appellant’s sole issue. 

 
 7

 We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47 

120631F.U05 

 

/Molly Francis/ 

MOLLY FRANCIS 

JUSTICE 
 8

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

JZACQUANE HICKMAN, Appellant 

No. 05-12-00631-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F10-60332-P. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Francis; 

Justices FitzGerald and Lewis participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered July 29, 2013 

/Molly Francis/ 

MOLLY FRANCIS 

JUSTICE