### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 08 -0 01 46 -C R

______________________________ DARREL LJ ENKI

NS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appea l from the 195th J udicial District Court

Dallas County , Texas Trial Court No. F 07-51595-QN

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Me mor and

um O pin ion

by Chi e f Jus tic e Mo rr issThis case was tra nsfer red to this Court from the F ifth District Court of Appea ls in Dallas as 1 part of the Texas Supreme Court's docket equalization prog ram. We are not awar e of a ny conflict be tw e e n th e pr e c e de nt of the Da lla s Co ur t and the pr e c e de nt o f t

his Court on any iss ue re le va

nt i n this appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 41.3. 2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Jose L and a ' s b ir

thd ay c e le br a tio n e nd e d tr a g ic a lly a ro un d mi dn ig ht ne ar a

Da lla s a uto ma tic 1 t el l er m ac h i n e, w h e nh e w as k i l l edb y an ar m edro b b er 's b u l l et
. T h e gr o u p ce l eb ra t i n g L an d a's birthday included his wife, his wife' s sister, and the sister' s boy friend. T he g roup left a bar on Ceda

r S p r i n g s R o a d

s h o rt l y b e f

o r e m i dn i g h t , an d L an d a w e n t t o a n e ar b y A T M an d

w i t h dr e w s o m e m o n e y. As L and a re joi ne d h is f

ri e nd s and

wi fe , a pe rs on de sc ri be d a s a

ta ll b la c k ma

n w itha ba nd ann a pa rt ly
cover ing his fac e, "hig h chee k bones," and a "r eally tight" thing on his hair appe are d, pointed a g un
a t L and a , a

nd dema nd e d " e ve ry

thi ngy ou have ." Whe n th e ro bb e r g ra bb e d f or L and a ' s n e c kla c e s, L anda r eac hed for

him and was shot dea d. The a ssailant turned a nd ran, joining three other men,
w h o a l l r ana w ay. I n the af termath of the shooting, D arr ell J enkins was a rre sted, cha

rg ed, tried, a

nd convicted,
a t jury tr ia l, o f c a

pit a l murd e r. F ro m a

se nte nc e of lif

e imp ri so nme nt, Jenk ins a pp e a ls, arguin g on ly that th e e vid e nc e is f

a c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

his c on vic tio n. F ind ing the e vid e nc e fa c tua lly
su ff ic ie nt, we a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt
. I n a fa ctual suff

iciency revie w, we r eview a ll the e vidence , but do so in a neutra l light and deter mine whether

the evidenc e supporting t he verdict is so weak or is so outweig hed by the g reat
we ig ht a nd pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e that th e jur y ' s v e rd ic t is cle arl y

wr on g or

manif e stl y3

unjust. Lan c on v . S

tat e , 253 S.W. 3d 69 9, 70 5 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 08 ); Ro be rts v . S tat e , 220 S.W .3d 52 1, 52 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07 ); Cle wis v . S tat e , 9 2 2 S. W. 2 d 1 2 6 , 1 3 4 ( T e x. Cr im
. A p p. 1996). I n this review, we are to affor d "due defe renc e" to a jury ' s determi nations. Ma rsh all v . S tat e , 210 S.W .3d 618, 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Even if co n t ra d i ctory witness testimony

may be compelling , the jury

is the sole judge of what weig ht to give to suc h testimony
. Lancon , 253 S.W .3d at 705. We are to aff

ord "almost complete defer ence to a jury ' s decision when that decision is based up on an ev alu ati on of cr edi bi li ty ." Id. (c i t i n g Ma rsh all , 2 10 S.W. 3d a t 62 5) . " Al tho ug h a

n a pp e llate court re viewing fac tual sufficie ncy has the a bility to se cond-guess the jury to a limited deg ree , the revie w should still be def ere ntial, with a high l evel of skepticism about the jury ' s verdict r equire d befo re a rev ers al c an o ccur ." Ro be rts , 220 S.W .3d 524. The standa

rd of f actua l r eview to be applied on appea l is the same re g ardle ss of whethe r the State uses direc t or circ umstantial evidence
. Kin g v . S tat e , 895 S.W .2d 701, 703 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 95 ); Mc Go ldr ic k

v . S tat e , 682 S.W .2d 573, 577 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). A person' s identity can be proved by either dire ct or c ircumstantial evidenc e. Ea rls v . S tat e , 707 S.W. 2d 82 , 85 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1986). The e vidence in this case is conflic t i n g an d n o t without flaws. With t he exception of the victim, his family , police, and t wo passer sby , other witnesse s were identified by at least two names—their r eal names and stre et names—ha d police rec ords, and wer e admittedly drug users orJenk ins was id ent if ie d b y his e x-lo ve r, Mit c he ll Po lk, wh o v olu nte e re d h is s us pic ion s to 2 police, esse ntially

that he wa s sure the a ctors had to be the men he ha d seen te n minutes earlier
. 4 male prostitutes. I t appea rs that seve ral may

have be en g angmembers. To sa y that their testimony
wa s n ot e nti re ly

c on sis te nt i s an und e rs ta te me nt. J enkins argues t hat t he re cord doe s not support his conviction because there is no phy sical evidenc e linking him a

nd the crime; beca

use a major w itness for the State, Rodney Butler , cannot be believe d; beca

use the de s cr i p tions of the robber ' s phy sical cha rac teristics do not support the State' s case ; beca

use a " jailhouse con fession" is questionable; and bec ause the rec ord, there fore , sh ow s th e e xiste nc e of

an a lte rn a tiv e re a so na

ble hy po the sis
. Whil e the r ecor d contains no phy sical evide nce suc h as fing erpr ints, ballistics tests, or DNA repor ts to prove g uilt, the absence of such evidenc e does not pre vent the State fr om proving its case. I n this case, the State prese nted evidenc e that J enkins admitted to a cellmate that he had c ommitt ed the murder ; that he had a

g un the nig ht of the murder ; that he was in the i mmediate ar ea a bout ten minutes before the murder ; that he ra n awa y ; that he was involved in discus s i ons with other 2 ind ivi du a ls a

bo ut t he wa y a ro bb e ry wa s mish a

nd le d; an d tha t, wh e n an ind ivi du a l in th e ho us e in wh ic h h e wa s h idi ngwa

nte d to op e n the do or to pol ic e , J e nk ins wa rn e d tha t eve ryon e in t

he ho us e
wo uld be kil le d if

he g ot c a ug ht. I n evidenc e is the pol ice interview of Butler in which he stated he sa w J enkins pointing a

g un
a t L and a ' s he a d. Jenk ins po int s o ut t hat B utl e r r e c ante d th os e int e rv ie w s ta te me nts on the wi tne ss stand and sug g ests that his story is thus unbelievable. B utler had f irst denied knowledge of the5

murder, the n had set out details of the off ense w hen De tective Randy L oboda intervie wed him, and fi na lly ha d r e c ante d th os e de ta ils wh e n h e te sti fi e d at tr ia l. Butler testified that he ha d simply followed L oboda' s lead duringthe interviewand provide d the information he thought L oboda wanted. Butler explained that he thoug ht he had be en name d as the shooter r ather

than J enkins and that he was just try ing to pr otect himself in identifying Jenkins as the shooter
. I n the interview, howeve r, Butler did not simply ag ree with L oboda' s statements or leadingquestions. The int ervie w was direc ted, but that is not the whole story
. Many critica l bits of information wer e not provided by L oboda, but wer e filled in by Butler as the intervie w prog resse d
an d as h e e x p l ai n edh o w B u t l er wa s n o ti n v o l v edi nt h e s h o o t i n g. Th e State a lso int

ro du c e d te sti mony

a bo ut a " ja ilh ou se c on fe ssi on " in w hic h Jenkin s h a d to ld
a c e llm a te tha

t he ha d k ill e d a

man n e ar a

n A TM and

that th e on ly

thi nghe g ot w a s tw o g old neckla ces. Counsel c orre ctly points out t hat the evide nce show s that one of the ne cklac es wa s silver. That discre pancy , howeve r, does not re quire the r emainder of the testimony

to be disreg arde d. There are also discre pancie s in the testimony about how the f

our peop l e in J enkins' g roup fl e d, wh e the r t og e the r o r s e pa rate ly
. Simi larl y , the de sc ri be d he ig ht of the sh oo te r w a s in c on sis te nt. Most of the evidenc e wa s that he wa s about t he height of L anda (the t allest of the f our people in the victim gr oup) at a

bout six fee t , while J enkins is about six fee t, three inc hes tall. These are discrepa ncies in testimony ; as such, the we ight of such testimony

is for the jury

to determine.6

Even if c ontradictory witness testimony is compelling ( and the c ontradictory testimony

here is not), the j ury is the s ole j udg e of what weight to g ive to such testimony
. Lancon , 253 S.W .3d at 705. We are require d to affor d "a lmost complete defe renc e to a jury ' s decision when that decision is bas ed upo n an eval uat io n o f cred ib il it y ." Id. (c i t i n g Ma rsh all , 2 10 S.W. 3d a t 62 5) . T his is a
c l a s s i c s i tu a t i o ni nw h i c h t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e w i t n e s s e s i s t h e p ar a m o u n t d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f

t h e j u r y. He re , th e pr oo f i s n ot s o w e a k th at it mu st be dis re g ard e d; a nd , d e sp ite c ouns e l' s a

ble argument about the lac k of believa bility of certain witnesses, we find no troop of unassailable Boy Scouts establishing a

theory contra ry to the picture painted by the asser tedly incre dible witnesses for the State. Se e Go od

ma n v . S tat e , 66 S.W .3d 283, 285 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Th e e vid e nc e is f

a c tua lly su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt

the ve rd ic t. We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt.

J o s h R
. M o r r i s s , III Chief J ustice Date Submitted: Marc h 16, 2009 Date D ecide d: Marc h 17, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh