### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-04-00457- CR

Be r nar d M all i, A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 403RD JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 30134 58, H ONO RAB LE BRENDA KENNEDY , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A j ur y fo un d a pp e lla nt B e rn ard

Ma lli g uil ty

of mur de r a nd sen tence d h im t o s ixty y ear s in prison. See Tex. P en. Code Ann. § 19.02(b)( 1) (W est 2003). On a ppeal, Ma lli arg ues that the e vid e nc e wa s le g a lly

ins uf fi c ie nt t o su

bs tanti a te g uil t be c a

us e the State fa ile d to p ro ve int e nt t o
cause serious bodily

injury or death; that the trial court er red b y denying Ma lli’s moti on for continuance ; and that the jury char g e er

roneously failed to instruct the jur y rega rding the law of pa rt ie s. We w ill a ff

ir m.Wil son had pre viously dated Johnson. 1 2 BACK GR OUND O nt h e e v e n i n g o f

O c t o b e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 1 , M a l l i an d

t h r e e o t h e r s , C ar l W h o b e r r y, Whoberry ’s g irlfriend Jackie Wilson, and Mi chae l Ba rnes, be at and killed Da le J ohnson. J ohnson, 1 a homeless man, had established a campsite unde rneath a loading dock on a r ailroad tra ck nea r Airport B oulevar d and Nor th L amar in Au s t in. Other homele ss individuals often visit ed Johnson
a t his c a mps ite , and

oc c a sio na lly

John so n invit e d th e m to sp e nd the nig ht. Ma lli and

B arn e s, wi th whom J ohnson sometimes w orked, had both be en camping at J ohnson’s site for a pproxi mately

two months before the eve ning of J ohnson’s death. Whoberry and W ilson had been a cquaintanc es of J ohnson for a

fewy ear s and we re oc casiona l visit ors to the campsite. During the wee k p re ce d i n g the nig ht of J ohnson’s death, J ohnson had ea rned approximately

$300 from employ

ment at L abor Express, a da y labor provide r. On t he nig ht of Oc tob e r 1 7, John so n a

nd a fr ie nd , Do n B a ke r, re tur

ne d to John so n’ s c a mps ite a ft e r w or k. Sho rt ly
a ft e r Joh ns on

and B a ke r a rr ive d at th e c a mps ite , Who be rr y , Wils on , B arn e s, and Ma lli joi ne d th e m. T h e gr o u p t h en s p en tt h e e v en i n g dri n k i n g an d t al k i n g. At some point, J ohnson and Whoberry beca me involved in a fig ht. Wil son, Ba rnes and Malli joined in the fig ht. Ba ker, though suffe ring from macular deg ener ation and leg ally blind, testified that he ha d sufficie nt e y esig ht to witness the beating
. Acc ording to Baker, the fig ht evolved into a prolong ed and sa

vag e beating of

J ohnson, during which the attacker s kicked J ohnson in theB a ke r pr ov ide d sava g e de ta ils of the fi g ht, inc lud ing a ssa ult ive c on du c t that wa s se xua l in 2 nature . Details not rele vant to our discussion have be en omitted. 3 head a nd fac e with steel-toe d b o o t s at l ea s t five times. Although the beatingbeg an as a fre nzied 2

a tta c k, a s the g ro up tir e d, the y be g an to take tur

ns be a tin g John so n, takin g dr ink s o f a lc oh ol w hil e they rested. Ba

ker attempted to break up the fig ht twice, but each ti me he inter vened the attacke rs hit him in th e f

a c e an d kn o c k e d h im d o w n . B ak e r s u f f e r e d f a c e an d h e a d in

ju r ie s , an d one of the attacke rs stole the cha

ng e in B aker ’s pocke ts. When Baker r ealized that his life was in da ng er, he
a tte mpt e d to fl e e . H ow e ve r, e a c h time he tr ie d to leave , an a tta c ke r pus he d him dow n an d b e a t hi m. B e fo re he fi na lly

su c c e e ded

in l e a vin g the sit e , B a ke r w itn e sse d Joh ns on on his ha nd s and kn e e s, beg g ing his attacker s to stop hit ting him. Malli was taunting J ohnson, callin g h im names and laug hing at him while he kicked a nd punched him. At some point , the attackers also stole J ohnson’s wallet, which he ld the money J ohnson had ea

rne d at L ab o r E x p ress. B aker was a ble to walk to a
near by intersec tion, wher e he collapsed on a st ree t corne r. A witness c alled EMS, who took Ba ker to the hospital for trea

tment. J ohnson died at the c ampsite. The morn in g

a f ter the inc ident, Malli arrive d at L abor Express with dried blood ca ked on his hands and clothes. When questioned about the bl ood, Malli told David Smit h, the dispatche r at L abor Express, that it was Johnson’s blood and brag g ed t h at h e h ad beaten J ohnson and made J ohnson beg for his l ife. Smith asked wher e Johnson was, and Malli told S mith that J ohnson was in the hospital being trea t ed fo r h i s i njuries. Malli brag g ed to him that after Malli had broken J ohnson’s nose and ja

w, he a nd the other attacker s called a n ambulance for Johnson.Th e re c or d is un c le ar a bo ut t he pr e c ise c hr on olo g y

of the se e ve nts
. 3 4 Malli, W ilson, W hoberr

y , and B arne s also told other individuals a bout the attack on John so n a

nd ho w the y ha d “s tom

pe d” John so n b y

kic kin g him

in t he he a d w ithste e l- toe d b oo ts. Acc ording to Billy

Gunn, a f riend of the attackers, Malli stated t hat he and the others ha d J ohnson on the g round and w ere kicking him in the head. Malli told Gunn that when B aker tried to intervene in the fig ht, “they

started whoppingup on him too.” During t h i s co n v er sation, Gunn noticed that Malli had blood on his boots and pants.

Almost a wee k afte r Johns on’s beating , Ba ker rea liz ed that Johnson m ay have be en
se ri ou sly hurt by Ma lli and the oth e r atta c ke rs and be g an s e arc hin g fo r Joh ns on . Wh e n B a ke r c ou ld not locate Johnson, Bake r re ported the inc ident and that Johnson was miss ing to Austin police.

A fe w day s later, a

nother fr iend of the g roup, Jerry Her ndon, overhe ard Ma lli st ating that he had kic ked Johnson in the head, hog -tied him, and stole $200 from him. Malli also said that he had le ft his blood-soaked c lothing at a site where Her

ndon campe d. Her

ndon had see n clothing he did not rec og nize at the campsite. Af ter the c onv er s at i o n with Malli, Herndon sawthe bloodstained clothes a

nd called Crime Stopper s; police retr ieved the clothing. During the same pe riod of time, Wi lson told Carol Teller, an acqua intance, that Wil son, Whoberry , Ba rnes, a nd Malli had “be at the [ex pletive] out of Dale” a nd took his money
. Teller went t o the campsite to sear ch for J ohnson, 3

and sh e fo un d h is b od

y . A t T e lle r’ s r e qu e st, a

fr ie nd re po rt e d th e loc a tio n o f Johns on ’s bo dy to police.5 T h a ta f t e r n o o n , p o l i c e d i s p a t c h e d

O f f i c e r C h r i s K e e nt o t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e b o dy. J ohnson’s body was identified, and homicide detec tives deter mined the identities of

those involved in the murder. T hey

secur ed ar

rest wa rra nts for Whoberry , W i l s o n , Barnes, a nd Malli. Pol ice
a rr e st e d W h o b e r

r y an d W i l s o n i n A u s t i n a f e w d ay s l a t e r , an d B ar

n e s an d M a l l i w e r e arr e ste d in L ouisiana and G eorg ia, re spectively
. A g rand jury indicted Malli on two counts of ca pital murder and one c ount of murder

for the be ating death of

J ohnson. At M al l i ’s t r i a l , M a u ri ce P ad i l l a, a D ep ar t m en to f P u b l i c S af et y DN A s er o l o gy criminalist, testified about the re sults of a DNA a naly sis on blood stains found on Malli’s boots and shirt and a c omforter

found at the c ampsite. Results showed that the proba bility that the blood on the three items came fr o m a randomly selec ted individual other than Johnson was one in 1.69 milli on. Vladimir Parung o, a Tra vis County

medical e x aminer, ide ntif ie d five lac erations to t he hea d (ca used by blunt force trauma) , a broke n nose, and hemorrha g ing above the skull a nd in the brain. Parung o testified that the ca use of Johnson’s death was blunt head injury cause d by at least five blunt traumas to the he ad, consistent with being kicked by steel-toed boots. How ever , J ohnson’s skull was not frac tured. Malli did not testify , and the jury found him g uilty

of murder . After

hear ing e vidence that Ma lli ha d thre e pr ior fe lony c on vic tio ns , the jur y se nte nc e d h im t o s ixty

y e ars in p ri so n. Th is appea l followed.
DI SCU SSIO N

Mall i pr e se nts thr e e iss ue s o n a pp e a l. H e argue s th a t th e State int ro du c e d le g a lly insufficient e vidence that he intended to cause death or serious bodi ly injury to J ohnson; that the trial court’s de nial of his motion for continuance was a n abuse of

discretion; and t h at t he trial c ourt6

e rr on e ou sly

fa ile d to ins tr

uc t th e jur

y re g ardi ng th e law of

pa rt ie s. We w ill a dd

re ss e a c h is su e in turn.
Evi de nc e of int e nt

I n h is f ir st iss ue , Ma lli argue s that the e vid e nc e wa s le g a lly ins uf fi c ie nt to su

pp or t hi s
c on vic tio n for mur de r b e c a us e the State fa ile d to pr ov e that he int e nd e d to c a us e se ri ou s b od ily injury or death. See Tex. P en. Code Ann. § 19.02(b) . Malli arg ues that the jury char g e re quired the jur y to f ind that Mal li or ano the r, un de r the law o f p art ie s, int e nd e d to c a us e de a th o r s e ri ou s b od ily injury to J ohnson. See Tex. P en. Code Ann. § 7.01( b) (West 2003)
. Malli c laims that the absenc e of e vid e nc e re g ard ingthe int e ns ity of the kic ks to Joh ns on ’s bo dy and the fa c t th a t John so n’ s a uto ps y
reve aled that his skull was not fra cture d constitute leg ally insufficient evidenc e that Malli intended to murder Johnson.

When review ing the evidenc e for leg al s ufficie ncy , we view the evidence in the light most favora

ble to the ver dict and dete rmine whe ther a ny rational trier of fac t c ould ha ve found the essential ele ments of the off ense be y ond a re asonable doubt. Thr e ad gil l v . S tat e , 146 S.W .3d 654, 66 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 04 ). Th is s tand ard of re vie w “ g ive s f

ull pl ay to th e jury ’s re sp on sib ili ty fairly to resolve conflicts in the evidenc e, to w eig h the evidenc e, and to draw r easona ble infer ence s from the e vidence .” Id
. (q u o t i n g Ga rc ia v . S tat e , 57 S.W .3d 436, 441 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)). The court char g e d

th e ju r y to f in d M a ll i gu il ty

o f mu r d e r if th e St a te p r o v e d

th at Malli, “ e it

h e r a c ti n g a lo n e o r w it

h an o th e r o r o th e r s a s a p arty to th e o f f e n s e . . . in te n ti o n a ll y

or kn o wing ly

cause [d] the death of an individual, namely , Dale Johnson, by choking or kicking or striking him with a boot . . .” A pe rson commits the offe nse of murde r if he in t en t i onally orMalli attempted to cast doubt on the re liability of B aker ’s testimony by

pointing out that 4 Ba k er s u ff e r e d f r o m m a c u l ar

d e g e n e r a t i o n , w a s l e g a l l y b l i n d , an d

w a s i n t o x i c a t e d

d u r i n g t h e b e a t i n g. H o w e v e r , d e t e r

m i n i n g t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f

w i t n e s s e s i s a

t a s k s o l e l y w i t h i n t h e p r o v i n c e o f t h e j u r y. Se e Po ind

e x te r v . S tat e , 153 S.W .3d 402, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We will not substitut e our deter mination f

or that of the jur

y . Se e id
. at 407. Fur

thermore , Ba

ker had adequate ey esig ht to make ou t sh a pe s and fa c e s, a s Bake r de mon str a te d at tri a l by ide nti fy ingsc e ne s d e pic te d o n p a int ing s in the court ro o m at the re quest of prose cutors. In addition, Baker w as able to identify Malli in the co u rt ro o m at t ri al
. Ba k er h ad kn o wn M al l i an d t h e ot h er at t ac k er s fo r s o m e t i m e b ef o re t h e b ea t i n g, and B aker

had spent the e vening of the incide nt talking with Malli and the ot h er individuals. A re a so na ble jur or c ou ld t he re fo re c on c lud e that Bake r wa s suf fi c ie ntl y fa

mil iar wit h Mal li t o li nk

him to t he inc ide nt. 7 kn ow ing ly

c a us e s th e death of

an in div idu a l. T e x. Pe n. Cod e Ann. § 1 9. 02 (b )( 1) . Ape rs on a c ts intentionally , or with intent, with respec t to a result of his conduc t when it is his consc ious objective
o r d e s ir e to e n g a g e in th e c o n d u c t o r c a u s e th e r e s u lt
. Id
. § 6. 03 (a) (W e st 2 00 3) . Ape rs on a c ts kn ow ing ly , o r w ithkn ow le dg e , w ithre sp e c t to a re su lt o f h is c on du c t w he n h e is a wa re that hi s conduct is re asonably

cer tain to cause the re sult. Id . § 6.03(b) ( West 2003). Parung o, the Travis County medical e x aminer, t e s ti f

ie d th a t b lu nt t r a u ma s to the head, which coul d h ave been c aused by kicks from a

steel-toed boot, c aused a brain he morrhag e and, ultimately , J ohnson’s death. Ba ker testified that from a distance of approximately twenty fee t, he
saw M a lli re pe a te dly

punc h a nd kic k Joh ns on

in t he he a d a nd bo dy wi th h is s te e l- toe d b oo ts. 4 Ad dit ion a lly , M a lli a dmi tte d th a t he pa rt ic ipate d in

John so n’ s b e a tin g . M a lli tol d Smit h, Gunn, a f

ellow L abor Express labore r, G u n n ’s girlfriend, a nd Her ndon that he had kic ked8

J ohnson in the head w ith his st eel-toed boots and made him begfor his life. Smith, Gunn, and Gunn’s g irlfriend a ll testified that Malli was cov er ed in blood during these c onversations. DNA analy sis identified to a substantial deg ree of ce rtaint y J ohnson’s blood on boots found in Malli’s backpa ck and on Ma lli’s clothes. Poli ce f ound the shirt that M al l i t old Herndon he had lef t at Her ndon’s campsite soaked in J ohnson’s blood.

Ba ker te stified that the attac k on J ohnson wa s s a v a g e and pr olonge d, and a substantial amount of blood was f

ound at the crime scene . The medic al examiner conc luded that at lea st five blu nt t ra uma s to the he a d, tr aum as whic h s te e l- toe d b oo ts a re c a pa ble of c a us ing , r e su lte d in J ohnson’s death. Although the examiner’s repor t indicates that J ohnson’s skull was not fra cture d, the same re po rt

a lso ind ic a te s th a t John so n suf fe re d a bra in he mor

rh a g e and fi ve la c e ratio ns be c a us e of a minimum of five blows to the hea d by a blunt forc e. Therefo re, v iew in g such evi den ce i n a l ight mo st favo rabl e to th e ju ry ’s gui lt y ve rd ic t,
we fi n d that a rational juror could have found that Malli intentionally or knowing ly

cause d J ohnson’s death bey ond a re asonable doubt. Thr e ad gil l v . S tat e , 1 46 S.W. 3d 65 4, 66 3 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 2004). We over

rule Malli’s first issue.
Denial of continuan ce I n h is s e c on d is su e , M a lli c on te nd s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d by re fu sin g to g ra nt h is motion for continuance
. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 29.03 (West 2003). Malli arg ues that the denial of

the m otion was improper beca use Malli’s counse l had another jury trial schedule d the
we e k b e fo re Ma lli ’s tr ia l and w a s t h e r e f o r e u n a va ila ble to i nv e sti g a te and

purs ue la st- min

ute ma tte rs .9 The g ranting or denial of a motion for continuance is within t he sound discre tion of the trial cour

t. He ise lbe tz v . S

tat e , 906 S.W .2d 500, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). There fore , the trial court’s r uling will not be re verse d unless the re cord sh o ws a cl ea r abuse of discretion. State v. Crank , 666 S.W .2d 91, 94 (Tex. 1984)
. To find an abuse of discretion in re fusing to gr ant a motion for c ontinuance, the re must be a showing that counsel’s ina dequate prepa ration time prejudice d the appellant. Se e He ise lbe tz , 906 S.W .2d at 511.

Although Ma lli contends that the trial c o urt’s denia l of his motion for continuance rende red his counsel unable to prepa re an ade quate de fense , he has not e x plained how c ounsel was unprepa red f or trial and ne ither argues nor establishes any prejudice to his cause a

rising f rom the trial court’s f ailure to c ontinue the trial. Be cause there is no evidence of pre judice, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discre tion. Se e id . We overrule Malli’s second issue. Jury instruction

I n his th i rd i s s u e, Malli contends that the jury char g e er roneously failed to instruct the jury reg ardingthe law of parties. Malli c oncede s that the descr iption of the law of parties g iven in the char g e is corr ect, but he argues that the wording of ea ch of the application par ag raphs of the
c ha rg e is a mbi g uo us and po ssi bly a llo we d th e jur y to c on vic t if

the y fo un d M a lli to h a ve a c te d w ith one other person, e ven thoug h the ac tions of that person we re not require d to conform to the law of parties. Be cause Malli’s counsel failed to obje ct to the char g e during discussio n s wi t h t he court prior to j u r

y s u mm a ti o n , w e w il l o n ly r e v e r s e th e ju d g me n t i f

th e c h ar g e w a s in c o r

r e c t a nd resulted in eg reg ious harm. Pi c k e ns v . S tat e , Nos. PD-1437-04, P D-1454-04, 2005 T ex. C rim. App.Under Al ma nz a v . S

tat e , 686 S.W .2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985), an unobjec ted-to jury 5 c ha rg e e rr or wa

rr ants re ve rs a l only wh e n th e e rr or re su lts in f

un dame nta l e rr or

and e g re g iou s h a rm ; the qu e sti on

of wh e the r t

he de fe nd ant h a s p re se rv e d ju ry -c ha rg e e rr or is r e le va nt o nly if the re is a deter mination that error

actua lly occur red. 10 L E XIS 9 5 9 , at * 1 4 -1 5 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . J u n e 2 2 , 2 0 0 5 ) ( ci t i n g Tho ma s v . S tat e , 723 S.W .2d 696, 707 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986 ))
. Upon inspection of the a pplication para g raphs of the jury ’s 5 instruction, we find that, a lthough the w ording of t he ins truction may not be as g rammatica lly clea r as possible, such wording did not constitute err or. Fur thermore , Malli does not argue funda mental
erro r o r e gre gi o u s h ar m re s u l t i n g fr o m t h e i n s t ru ct i o nan d fa i l s t o i n d i ca t e h o w t h e j u r y ch ar ge resulted in such ha

rm as to re nder his trial unfa ir and impartial. S e e Th o m as , 7 2 3 S
. W .2d at 707. We overrule Malli’s third issue.
CO NC LU SION

Havingoverr

uled all of Malli’s issues, we aff irm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pemberton Affir med Filed: Jul y

28, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh