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 Court Cause No. 19-CR-2247

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Roshawn Jeramaine Crookshank appeals his conviction of 

murder. In one issue he contends the trial court abused its discretion in admitting 

the testimony of a witness. We affirm. 

COMPETENCY DETERMINATION

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 to 
2

testify at the time of trial. Appellant further contends that he was harmed by the

testimony because this was the only witness who placed appellant at the scene of 

the murder and who testified that appellant was chasing the complainant with a 

gun. Appellant argues that without this witness’s testimony, the chances of 

appellant being convicted “was far less.”

A. General Legal Principles

We review a trial court’s determination of competency for an abuse of 

discretion. Rodriguez v. State, 772 S.W.2d 167, 170 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th 

Dist.] 1989, pet. ref’d). In reviewing a trial court’s competency determination, we 

consider the entire record, including the witness’s trial testimony. Hernandez v. 

State, 643 S.W.2d 397, 400 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982). The party raising 

incompetency has the burden to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence.

Beavers v. State, 634 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, pet. 

ref’d). 

There is a presumption that a person is competent to testify. Tex. R. Evid. 

601(a). Any person “whom the court examines and finds lacks sufficient intellect 

to testify concerning the matter in issue” is an incompetent witness. Id. The trial 

court must consider the witness’s ability “to observe intelligently the events in 

question at the time of their occurrence, plus [she] must have the capacity of 

recollection and narration.” Rodriguez, 772 S.W.2d at 170 “The capacity to 

narrate involves the ability to understand questions posed and to frame intelligent 

answers, and to understand the moral responsibility to tell the truth.” Id. “If a 

person afflicted with a physical or mental disability possesses sufficient 

intelligence to receive correct impressions of events he sees, retains clear 

recollection of them and is able to communicate them through some means, there 
3

is no reason for rejecting his testimony.” Watson v. State, 596 S.W.2d 867, 870 

(Tex. Crim. 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, appellant asked the witness whether she understood 

why she was there, whether she would testify truthfully, and whether she was able 

to understand and answer questions correctly. The witness responded, “Yes, sir,”

to each inquiry. Appellant asked no further questions. The court then conducted 

its examination:

The Court: Okay, so the issues in determining competency of a 

witness to testify include the witness’s ability to perceive, recall and 

recount accurately the event in question. Let me just ask you, you

know they’re going to ask you some question - -

The Witness: I know how to answer the question back. 

The Court: And do you remember the event? 

The Witness: Yes, sir.

The Court: And will you be able to tell us about that event? 

The Witness: Yes, sir.

The Court: Okay, then it’s the Court’s opinion that the witness is able 

to testify in this case, is competent to testify. 

During her testimony before the jury, the witness testified that she was 

testifying because she had “seen something that happened.” She recalled talking to

a detective, but not the detective’s name. She recalled that she was on “Avenue K”

where she saw the complainant on the day of the murder. She testified that she 

knew the complainant. The witness’s narrative testimony was disjointed and 

confusing, recalling that she had purchased a “rock” and had seen the “Mexican 
4

guy, the crippled one in a wheelchair.” She testified that she purchased a “rock”

from the complainant and left to get a coke from a nearby store. 

[State]: And before you left that area did you see anything happen to 

[the complainant]?

[Witness]: Hell no. You call me crazy. No, I did not, ma’am. Because

he just gave me my rock. And I walked towards something here. 

The witness testified that the “Mexican” told her that the complainant was 

killed over a girl. 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, because [the complainant] was like 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 truth here. Everybody I told them that this is not 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 thing I know [the complainant] was running behind

the house here. 

[State]: He was running behind 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 know is what I told 

you. I was trying to help because I had enough. I bought 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 refresh her memory and review the statement she made to a detective after 

the murder. 
5

After reviewing the statement, the trial court brought in the jury and the 

witness continued to testify. The witness testified that she remembered giving the 

statement to the detective and that she remembered telling the detective that she 

saw the complainant get hit by a suburban. She denied telling the detective that the 

person inside the suburban was appellant and denied that she ever said appellant 

was holding a gun. She testified that:

the man tried 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. Don’t give me no trouble, home 

girl. (Mumbling) Who are you? (Mumbling). 

The State requested that they be allowed to play the video of the witness’s 

prior inconsistent statement for the jury. Appellant objected to the witness’s 

competency again. The trial court commented that it did not believe that her 

“recount” was there and allowed the State to show the witness the video of the 

statement she previously made to a detective. 

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

to the detective or that she previously made certain statements. She also continued 

to provide narrative commentary about what she believed was going 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 the video of the prior 

statement for the jury, the State passed the witness.

Appellant asked the witness the following questions:

[Appellant]: You didn’t see [appellant] with a gun, correct?

[Witness]: No. She had - - Brittany had told them Ro.

[Appellant]: And my next question is Brittany told you it was 

[appellant]?
6

[Witness]: Yes, Sir. They didn’t find no girl or lady. 

[Appellant]: No further questions. 

THE WITNESS: Brittany told them Ro. Brittany told them Ro. 

[Appellant]: No further questions.

THE COURT: Anything else?

THE WITNESS: Brittany told them Ro.

[State]: No, You Honor.

THE WITNESS: Brittany told them Ro.

C. Analysis 

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

at times.

1 In responding to direct questions, the witness gave direct answers. On 

voir dire the witness gave no indication that she did not understand or would not 

answer questions truthfully. In the court’s examination, the witness indicated she 

remembered the event and would answer questions. There was no indication 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 

competent despite psychologist’s report declaring him incompetent where

witness’s testimony showed recollection, understanding, and ability to frame 

“intelligent answers;” party raising competency challenge has burden of proof).

During trial, the witness recalled what she witnessed on the day of the 

murder, albeit adding in additional unnecessary details—like the fact that she 

bought a “10-dollar rock” from the complainant. However, this testimony does not 

render the witness incompetent, but instead is a matter 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 this issue is preserved on appeal. 
7

ref’d) (“Although some of complainant’s responses were confusing and 

inconsistent, a witness is not rendered incompetent merely because there are 

inconsistencies in her testimony.”); Torres 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” the “overall testimony indicated sufficient 

accuracy” of recollection; 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 denied was whether she saw appellant in the suburban, 

saw appellant chase the complainant with a gun, or whether she saw appellant with 

a gun. Her testimony demonstrated that she possessed the ability to observe the 

events in question and recall those events. Though she was confronted with a prior 

inconsistent statement, this goes to the credibility of the witness. See Hogan, 440 

S.W.3d at 217; Torres, 424 S.W.3d at 255.

We cannot say on this record that the trial court abused its discretion in 

finding the witness competent to testify. We overrule appellant’s sole issue on 

appeal.

CONCLUSION

Having overruled appellant’s sole issue on appeal, we affirm the judgment

of the trial court. 

/s/ Ken Wise

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Poissant.

Do Not Publish — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).