Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 1 , 2023

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 21

- 00748

- CR

ROSHAWN JERAMAINE CROOKSHANK , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 56th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial C ourt Cause No. 19

- CR

- 2247

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Roshawn Jer amaine Crookshank appe als his conv ictio n of
murder. In one issue he contends th e trial court a bused its discretion in admitting
the te stimony of a witness. We affirm.

C OMPETENCY D ETERM I NATION In his sole issue on appeal, appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony of a witness because she was incompetent to2 testify at the time of trial. Appellant further contends that he was harmed by the

test imony because th is was the only witness who placed appellant at the scene of
the murder and who testified that appell ant was chasing the complainant with a

gun . A ppellant argues that without this witness ’ s testimony, the chan ces of appellant being c onvict ed “ was far l ess. ”

A. General Lega l Principles

We review a trial court ’ s determination of competency for an abuse of
dis cr etion. Rodriguez v. State , 772 S.W.2d 167, 170 (Tex. App.

— Hou ston [14th Dist.] 1989, pet. ref ’ d). In reviewing a trial court ’ s c ompete ncy determina tion , we consi der t he entire record, including the w it ness ’ s t rial testi mony. Hernan dez v.
Stat e , 643 S.W.2d 397, 400 (Tex. Crim. App. 198 2). The party raising incompetency has the burden to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence.
Beav ers v. State , 634 S.W.2d 893, 89 5 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, pet.
ref ’ d).

T here is a presumption that a person is compete nt to testify. Te x. R. Evid.
601 (a)

. Any person “ who m the court examines and finds lacks sufficient intellect

to testif y concerning the matter in issue ” is an incompetent wi tness. Id

. The trial
court must consider the witness ’ s ability “ to ob serve intelli gently the events in question at the time of their occurrence , pl us [she] must have the capacity of
recollection and na rration. ” Ro driguez , 772 S.W.2d at 170 “ The capacity to
narrate involve s the abili ty to underst and questions posed and to frame intelligent answers, and to understand the moral responsibility to tell the tru th. ” Id

. “ If a person afflicted with a p hysica l or ment al d isabili ty possesses sufficient intelligence to receive correct impressio ns of events he sees, retains clear
recollection of them and is able to communicate them through some means, there3 is no reason for rejecting his te st imon y. ” Watson v. Sta te , 596 S.W.2 d 86 7 , 870 (Tex. Cr im. App. 1980).

B. Background

At trial and outside of the presence of the jury, appellant requested to take
the witness on voir dire and asked the trial court to conduct a competency determination

. On voir dire, a ppe llant asked the wi t ness whether she un ders tood why she was there , whether she would testi fy truthfully , and whether she was able to understand and answer questions correctly. The wit ness respon ded , “ Yes, sir , ” to each inquiry. Appell ant asked no further qu esti ons. T h e court then conducted
its examination :
The Court : Okay , so the issues in determining competency of a witness to testify inclu de the witness ’s ability to perceive, recall and

recoun t accur ately the event in question. Let me just ask you , you k now they ’re going t o ask you some ques tion

- - T h e Witness : I know how to answer the question back. The Court : And do you remember the event?
T h e Witness : Yes, s ir. The Court : And will you be able to tell us a bout that event?
T h e Witness : Yes, si r. Th e Cour t : Okay, then i t ’s the Court ’ s opi nion that th e witness is able to testify in this case, is competent to testify.

D uring her testimony before the jury, the witness testified that she was
t estifying because she had “ seen something that happened. ” Sh e reca lled talking to
a detec tive, but n ot the detective ’ s name. She recalled that she was on “ Avenue K ” where she saw the complainant on th e day of the murder. S h e testified that she knew the complainant. The witness ’ s narrative testimony was disjointe d and
confu sing, reca lling that she had purchased a “ rock ” and had seen the “ Me xica n4 guy, the crippled on e in a wheelcha ir. ” She testified that she purchase d a “ rock ”
from the complainant and left to get a coke from a nearby store.
[State ] : And befor e you lef t that area did you see anything happe n to [the complainant] ? [Witness]: Hell no

. You call me cra zy. No, I d id not, ma ’am. B ecause he ju st gave me my rock. A n d I walked towards something here.

The witness testified that the “ Me xican ” told her that the co mplaina nt was kille d over a gir l. She testified that she saw a suburban driving on Avenue K that day driven by “ a pedestrian. ” In an attempt to clarify the witness ’ s answer, the
State asked , again, who was driving : [Witness ] : A pedestrian, beca use [the complainant] was li ke this here,

comes around the car, okay? Next thing I know, I seen [the complainant] get on the ground or walking

- - because I ’ve told y ’all I ’m just trying to help [the complainant] , huh? I ’ m telling you I ’ m telling the tru th here. Everybody I told t hem that this is no t helping [the complainant] here. But all I know

- - [State ] : So you saw [ complainant ] fall on the ground? [Witness : I didn ’t see

- - I seen him in the car like this here talking to somebody . Next thin g I know [the c omplainant] was r unning behind the h ouse here. [State ] : He was running behin d the house? [Witness ] : Yes, ma ’am . Yes ma ’am. Yes , ma ’am. [State ] : Who was chasing him? [Witness ] : Chasing him? I don’ t know , man. All I kno w is w hat I told you. I was try i ng to hel p because I had enough. I b ought a 10

- dollar rock from [the complainant] . (Mumbling)

. At this point, the State requested that the trial court dismiss the jury so the witness
could ref resh her memory and review the sta tement she made to a detec t ive after
the murd er.5 After reviewing the statement, the trial court brought in the ju ry and the witness continued to testify. The witness testified that she remembered giving the

statement to the dete ctive and that she remem bered telling the dete ctiv e that she
saw the complainant g et hit by a suburban. She denied telling the detective that the person inside the sub urban was appellant and denied that she ever said appellant was holding a gun. She testified that :
the man trie d to get out of the car to help that man. . . I seen [the complainant ] get up, try to get up, and [appellant] tried to help [the complainant ] get up. I didn ’t say nothing about no gun. Don ’t put that [expletive] in my conversation. D on’ t give me no tro ubl e, ho me girl. (Mumblin g ) Who are you? (Mu mbling).

Th e State requested that they be allowed to play the video of the witness ’ s prior incon sistent statement for the jury. Appellant objected to the witness ’ s
comp et ency again. The trial court commented that it did not believe t h at her

“ recount ” w as there and allowed the State to show the witness the video o f the statement she previou sly made to a detective.

When asked questions the witness either admitted or denied that she spoke

to the detective or th at she previously made cer t ain statements . S he also continued to provide narrative commentary about what she believed was goin g on. The
witness denied her prior statement , and the trial court allowed the State to play a portion of her prior statement to the jury. After playing th e video of the prio r statement fo r the jury, the State passed the wi tness

. Appellan t asked the witness the following questions : [ Appellant ] : You didn ’t see [appellant] with a gun, correct? [Witness ] : No. She had

- - Brit t an y had told them Ro. [ Appellant ] : And my next quest ion is Brittany told you it was [appellant] ?6 [Witness ] : Yes , S i r. They didn ’t find no girl or lady. [ Appellant ] : No further questions.
THE WIT NESS : Brittany told them Ro. Brittany told the m Ro. [ App ellant ] : No further questions. THE COURT : Anything else?
THE WIT NESS : Brittany to ld them Ro. [State]: No, You Honor.
THE WIT NESS : Brittany to ld them Ro

. C. Analysis

The witness ’ s narrative testimony was disjointed and difficult to underst and

at times

. 1 In responding to direct questions, the witness gave d irect answers. On
voir dire the witness ga ve no indication that she di d not understand or would not answer questions truthfully. In t he court ’ s examination, the wi tness indicated she
remembere d the event and would answer questions. Th ere was no indicati on that
the witness could not testify competently from either voir dire or the trial court ’ s examination. See Beavers v. State , 634 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, pet. ref ’ d) ( concluding trial court did not err in finding witness

com petent desp ite p s ychol ogist ’ s report declaring hi m in c omp et ent where
witness ’ s testimony showed recollection , understandin g , and ability to frame

“ intelligent answers ; ” party raising competency challenge has burden o f proof ).
During tri al, t he witness rec alled what she witnessed on the day of the murder, albeit adding in additional unnecessary details

— like the fac t that she bought a “ 10

- dollar rock ” from the complainant. However, this testimony does not render t he witness incompetent , b ut instea d is a mat ter of witness credibility

. See Hogan v. State , 440 S.W.3d 211, 217 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet.

1 We assume without deciding that th is issue is preserved on appeal.7 ref ’ d) ( “ Although some of complainant ’ s responses were confusing and inconsistent, a w it ness is not rendered incompetent mere ly because there a r e inconsistencies in her t estimony. ” ) ; Tor res v. State , 424 S.W.3d 245, 255 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. ref ’ d) ( although witness ’ s responses showed “ some conflict and confusion ” t h e “ overall testimony i ndicat ed sufficient

accurac y ” of recoll ection; such inconsistencies go to credibility, not competency ).
The witness recalled the events on the day of the murder and recounted them to the jury. The only issue she denie d was whether she sa w appellant in the suburba n,
saw app e llant chase the com plainant with a gun, or whether she saw appellant with

a gun. Her t estimony demonstrated that she possessed the ability to observe the
events i n question and recall those eve nts. T hough she wa s confronted with a prior
inconsistent stat ement , this go es to the credibility of the witness

. Se e Hogan , 440
S.W.3d at 217 ; Tor res , 424 S.W.3d at 255

. We cannot say on this record that the trial court abused its discretion in finding the witness compete nt to testify

. We overrule app ellant ’ s sol e issue on appeal.

C ONCLUSION Having overrule d appellant ’ s sole issue on appeal, we a ffirm the judgm ent of the trial court.

/s/ Ken Wise Justice

Panel consists of Justices Wise , Jewell , and Po issant

. Do Not Publish

— T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2( b).