Opinion issued May 12, 2015.

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-14-00242-CR

———————————

ADARRIS RAYSHAWN OUZENNE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 10th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 12CR3441

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury convicted appellant Adarris Rayshawn Ouzenne of aggravated 

robbery and assessed his punishment at eighteen years’ confinement in TDCJ. 

Ouzenne argues that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the 
2

jury’s negative finding on his affirmative defense of duress. We affirm the trial 

court’s judgment. 

Background

Teela Christian was throwing a small birthday party for her teenaged 

daughter when four armed men wearing ski masks and gloves kicked in the door to 

Teela’s home and announced, “This is a robbery. Get on the floor.” One of the men 

held the house’s occupants at gun point, while the others ransacked the house 

looking for a safe and other valuables. Teela’s sister, who was in another room 

when the robbery occurred, escaped through the bathroom window and called 911. 

When the police arrived, two of the robbers who were later identified as 

Ouzenne and Reginald Patterson ran towards the garage, while the other two 

robbers ran out of the house and jumped the fence. When the police searched the 

garage they found what appeared to be a handgun, but was later determined to be a 

BB or pellet gun, lying on the floor outside a closet that was attached to the garage. 

Ouzenne was hiding in the closet. Reginald was found hiding in the bathroom next 

to the closet with a loaded Glock handgun.

After his arrest, Ouzenne made two written statements and a video statement

to police—all of which were admitted into evidence at trial. In particular, Ouzenne 

told the police that he and Reginald were the only two men involved in the 
3

robbery; a third man, who Ouzenne identified as “Pete,” drove them to Teela’s 

house but stayed in the car.1 According to Ouzenne, he and Reginald

[W]anted some money. We really said we wanted money. We didn’t 

have no plans on who we were going to get or whatever. We decided 

to ride around the outskirts of Houston and look for a place to hit. We 

ended up down here cutting through alleyways. 

. . . .

I was only told that there was a possible lick at this house. I just went 

room to room, looking for stuff, that was it. When we ride around 

looking for houses to hit, if a house look a certain way, we just hit it. 

You know how crooks is, when we see the cars or the house, if it look 

like something there, then we hit it. 2

Ouzenne told police that he and Reginald broke into the house looking for money, 

jewelry, and drugs. They had no intention of hurting anyone and only used the 

weapons to scare the occupants. Ouzenne admitted to wearing gloves and a do-rag 

in order to conceal his identity and prevent the police from gathering evidence. 

When asked where he got the BB gun, Ouzenne told the police that when he 

got in the car, he “ask[ed] what tools or whatever we were going to use and how 

we were going to do this, like how we were going to break in” and he was told that 

there was a gun behind the driver’s seat for him to use. Ouzenne also told the 

police that he was willing to risk so much in this robbery because “[a]s a man, we 

 1 Ouzenne later told police that he did not know if Pete was ever in the house and 

that if Pete had come inside, he must have entered when Ouzenne was in the back 

of the house. 

2 One of the detectives testified that “hitting a lick” generally means committing a 

robbery.
4

are the head of the household. We are supposed to take care of things. I work on 

and off doing floors and stuff. Work has been slow.” 

When the police asked Ouzenne if anyone had forced him to participate in 

the robbery, Ouzenne said no.

At trial, however, Ouzenne testified to a different version of events. 

According to Ouzenne, he met up with Reginald and Reginald’s brother, 

Sherman,

3 the night of the robbery. The three men got high together in a car and 

then went for a drive, with Sherman behind the wheel. Sherman and Reginald were 

in the front seat talking, while Ouzenne was in the backseat, either asleep, or high 

and listening to music. Ouzenne denied participating in the conversation and 

claimed that he was unaware of where they were going or what the brothers were 

planning.

Ouzenne testified that he fell asleep in the car and when he woke up, they 

were in the alley behind Teela’s house and someone was shaking him and talking 

about “hitting a lick.” Sherman and Reginald were carrying black automatic 

handguns, and one of them handed Ouzenne a BB gun pistol along with a do-rag 

and gloves. Ouzenne testified that he did not know what was going on and when he 

told Reginald and Sherman that he did not want to participate, he was told that he 

had to or he “wouldn’t make it home.” 

 3

 Ouzenne testified that Sherman also went by the name “Pete.”
5

Ouzenne told the jury that he felt like he had no choice but to go with 

Sherman and Reginald because they were both carrying loaded firearms and he 

only had a BB gun, and he did not have an opportunity to extricate himself from 

the situation because Reginald was always right behind him. Ouzenne denied 

searching any of the rooms or stealing anything, and claimed that after he followed 

Sherman into the house he went directly to the garage, threw the BB gun down, 

and hid in the closet.

Ouzenne told the jury that he was still high when he talked to the police and 

that the police made him talk and told him what to say. He said he lied in his 

statements and did not say Sherman was a part of the robbery because he was 

afraid that something might happen to his family if he implicated Sherman.

The jury was charged on the affirmative defense of duress. The jury found 

Ouzenne guilty of aggravated robbery, implicitly rejecting his duress defense. This 

appeal followed.

Legal and Factual Sufficiency

Ouzenne challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence 

supporting the jury’s negative finding on his affirmative defense of duress.

A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law

Unlike criminal convictions which are only subject to legal sufficiency 

review, an appellate court may review a finding rejecting an affirmative defense
6

for both legal and factual sufficiency. Butcher v. State, 454 S.W.3d 13, 20 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2015); Matlock v. State, 392 S.W.3d 662, 668–70 (Tex. Crim. App.

2013). When a defendant challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence 

supporting the jury’s rejection of an affirmative defense, we examine the record for 

any evidence that supports the jury’s negative finding while ignoring all evidence 

to the contrary, unless a reasonable jury could not. See Matlock, 392 S.W.3d at

669. If no evidence supports the jury’s negative finding, then we examine the 

entire record to determine whether the evidence establishes the issue as a matter of 

law. Id. A jury’s finding on a defendant’s affirmative defense should be overturned 

for lack of legal sufficiency only if the evidence conclusively proves the

affirmative defense, and no reasonable jury was free to think otherwise. Id. at 670.

In reviewing the record, we defer to the jury’s determination of the credibility of 

the witnesses and the weight to give the evidence. Smith v. State, 355 S.W.3d 138, 

148 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref’d); Cleveland v. State, 177 

S.W.3d 374, 388–89 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d).

In a factual-sufficiency review of a finding rejecting an affirmative defense, 

we view the entirety of the evidence in a neutral light, but do not usurp the function 

of the jury by substituting our own judgment in place of the jury’s assessment of 

the weight and credibility of the witnesses’ testimony. Matlock, 392 S.W.3d at 671.

We may sustain a defendant’s factual-sufficiency claim only if we determine that 
7

the verdict is so against the great weight of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust, 

conscience-shocking, or clearly biased. Id.

In order to establish an affirmative defense of duress, a defendant must 

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he committed the offense because 

he was compelled to do so by threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to 

himself or another. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 8.05(a) (West 2011). Compulsion 

“exists only if the force or threat of force would render a person of reasonable 

firmness incapable of resisting the pressure.” Id. § 8.05(c). The affirmative defense 

of duress is not available if the actor “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly 

placed himself in a situation in which it was probable that he would be subjected to 

compulsion.” Id. § 8.05(d).

B. Analysis

The jury was presented with two very different versions of events—one 

based on Ouzenne’s statements to police that indicate that Ouzenne was a willing 

participant in the robbery and the other based on Ouzenne’s trial testimony that he 

only participated in the robbery because he was under duress. 

Here, the record evidence supporting the jury’s negative finding on 

Ouzenne’s affirmative defense of duress includes Ouzenne’s statements to police 

that no one forced him to participate in the robbery and that he and Reginald drove

around the night of the robbery scouting out locations to “hit” because both men 
8

“wanted money.” According to Ouzenne, “[w]ork ha[d] been slow” and he had 

financial obligations he needed to meet. Ouzenne, who admitted to searching the 

house for valuables, also told the police that he and Reginald had no intention of 

hurting anyone and that they only used the weapons to scare the victims. Ignoring 

all evidence contrary to the jury’s negative finding on the issue of duress, we 

conclude that some evidence in the record shows that Ouzenne was not compelled 

to commit aggravated robbery in this case by threat of imminent death or serious 

bodily injury to himself or another. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 8.05(a). Having 

reached that conclusion, our legal sufficiency inquiry ends. See Cleveland, 177 

S.W.3d at 390. We hold that the evidence concerning the jury’s negative finding 

on Ouzenne’s affirmative defense of duress is legally sufficient as a matter of law.

Ouzenne contends that his trial testimony, coupled with the fact that the only 

weapon he was carrying during the home invasion was a BB gun, establishes that 

there was factually insufficient evidence supporting the jury’s rejection of his 

affirmative defense of duress. However, the jury, as factfinder, was free to 

disbelieve Ouzenne’s trial testimony that he was unaware of Reginald and 

Sherman’s plans to rob Teela’s house, and that he participated in the robbery 

because he only had a BB gun and Sherman and Reginald, who were carrying 

loaded firearms, told him that if he refused to participate he “wouldn’t make it 

home.” See Matlock, 392 S.W.3d at 671. 
9

After reviewing the record in a neutral light and deferring to the jury’s

assessment of the weight and credibility of the witnesses’ testimony, as we must, 

we conclude that the evidence supporting the jury’s rejection of Ouzenne’s 

affirmative defense is not greatly outweighed by the contrary evidence. Id.

Accordingly, we overrule Ouzenne’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of the 

evidence supporting the jury’s rejection of his duress defense.

Conclusion

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Russell Lloyd

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Huddle, and Lloyd.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).