1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09-13-00549-CR

_________________

CURTIS GLAZE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 356th District Court

Hardin County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 21986

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Curtis Glaze was indicted for the offense of murder. See Tex. 

Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(b)(1)(West 2011). The jury found Glaze guilty of murder 

and assessed his punishment at life in prison and a fine of $10,000. In two issues, 

Glaze argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment and asserts 

the trial court erred in not instructing the jury that it must reach a unanimous 

verdict as to the crime committed. We affirm.
2

Sufficiency of the Evidence

In his first issue, Glaze contends the evidence is insufficient to support the 

judgment of conviction for the offense of murder. Specifically, Glaze contends that 

the evidence is insufficient to show that his conscious objective or desire was to 

cause the death of Brian Drake Jr. 

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view all evidence in the

light most favorable to the verdict and determine, based on that evidence and any 

reasonable inferences therefrom, whether a rational factfinder could have found the 

essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Gear v. State, 340 

S.W.3d 743, 746 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); see Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 

899, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 

(1979)). It is not our role to sit as the thirteenth juror, and we may not substitute 

our judgment for that of the factfinder by re-evaluating the weight and credibility 

of the evidence. Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)

(quoting Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 740 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999)). We defer 

to the factfinder’s responsibility to fairly resolve conflicts in testimony, weigh the 

evidence, and draw all reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Id.

(quoting Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)). 
3

As charged in this case, a person commits murder if he “intentionally or 

knowingly causes the death of an individual[.]” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 

19.02(b)(1). The offense is a first-degree felony. Id. § 19.02(c). Glaze essentially 

challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that he intentionally or knowingly 

caused Drake’s death. The jury may infer the defendant’s intent to kill from the 

evidence of defendant’s acts, words, or conduct. Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 

487 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Hall v. State, 418 S.W.2d 810, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1967) (quoting Kincaid v. State, 198 S.W.2d 899, 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 1946)).

The jury may infer a defendant’s intent from any facts in evidence the jury believes 

proves the existence of that intent, such as the existence of a deadly weapon. 

Brown v. State, 122 S.W.3d 794, 800 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). If a deadly weapon, 

such as a firearm, is used in a deadly manner, the inference is almost conclusive 

that the defendant intended to kill. Adanandus v. State, 866 S.W.2d 210, 215 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1993); see also Cordova v. State, 698 S.W.2d 107, 112 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1985). Attempts to cover up guilt or evidence of flight are both relevant to 

show a defendant’s consciousness of guilt. Bigby v. State, 892 S.W.2d 864, 884 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1994); Cantrell v. State, 731 S.W.2d 84, 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1987).
4

The evidence at trial included testimony from a number of witnesses. Horace 

Theal testified that he was with Drake the night of the incident, and that they were 

hanging out with Briana Herring, Tyler Shute and another friend named Maude. 

Theal and Herring rode with Drake in Drake’s white Chevrolet Silverado truck to 

drop off Shute at her house, which was located on Glaze Road. Theal testified that 

after they dropped off Shute at her house, Drake proceeded to drive back down 

Glaze Road. Theal was in the passenger’s seat, and Herring sat between Drake and 

Theal. After they had been driving a little while down Glaze Road, Theal noticed a 

vehicle driving “real close” behind them. He later identified the vehicle as a white 

Dodge Durango.

The Durango continued following very closely behind their vehicle, which 

concerned Theal. Eventually, the Durango passed them, but when they reached the 

intersection of Glaze Road and Highway 326, the Durango pulled in front of them 

and blocked the intersection. Theal recalled that the occupants of the Durango 

started yelling at them. According to Theal, they decided not to engage the 

occupants of the Durango, so Drake maneuvered around the Durango and turned 

left onto Highway 326, traveling north towards Kountze, Texas. The Durango

began to pursue them. Theal testified that Drake accelerated his speed to try to get 

away from the Durango. Theal estimated that they were traveling at speeds around
5

sixty to seventy miles per hour during the chase. The Durango accelerated as well

and was, at times, as close as two to three car lengths behind them. 

Theal testified that he started to hear what sounded like rocks hitting Drake’s 

truck. He heard this sound multiple times. Theal then heard a “big loud noise[.]”

He testified that “a round went through the back window; and it shattered[,]”

causing his ears to ring. Theal looked to his left and saw Drake, who was 

unresponsive and appeared to be injured or dead. Theal reached over Herring and 

grabbed the wheel to try to prevent the truck from going off the road; however, the 

truck eventually left the road, hit a fence, and came to rest in a field. After they 

came to a stop, Theal looked at Drake and believed he was dead. He and Herring 

grabbed Drake’s phone, got out of the truck, and ran to the other side of the road 

and into the woods.

According to Theal, the Durango turned around and left. Because Theal 

believed the Durango would return, he and Herring ran about one hundred yards 

into the woods and hid behind some trees. Herring called 9-1-1, and they hid in the 

woods waiting for help to arrive. While they were waiting, the Durango returned 

and the occupants of the Durango got out and started yelling towards the woods, in 

the direction where Theal and Herring were hiding. While Theal could not 
6

understand everything that they were yelling, he did hear someone yell, “‘Y’all 

better F-ing come out of the woods[.]” 

Herring substantially corroborated Theal’s testimony regarding the events 

that night. She testified that she saw two people in the Durango. She identified the 

passenger in the Durango as a male, but she could not identify the gender of the 

driver. She explained that she looked back while the Durango was pursuing them 

and saw a man leaning out the passenger’s window. 

Herring testified that while she and Theal were hiding in the woods, she 

called 9-1-1 to report the shooting. While on the phone with the operator, the 

Durango returned, and two white men exited the Durango and yelled in their 

direction that they were going to get them. After about ten minutes, the men left. 

The State played the 9-1-1 call for the jury, which was consistent with Herring’s 

testimony.

The officer who responded to Herring’s 9-1-1 call testified that when she 

arrived at the scene, she interviewed Herring and Theal. The officer had Herring

ride with her back to Glaze Road. Once on Glaze Road, the officer backed into a 

dirt driveway and waited for other assisting officers to finish their investigation. 

While waiting, the Durango pulled in front of the officer’s patrol car, then took off 

down the road. Herring identified the Durango as the vehicle involved in the 
7

shooting earlier that night. Another officer pursued the Durango and initiated a 

traffic stop. According to the officer initiating the stop, when the Durango stopped, 

Glaze jumped out of the passenger’s side of the vehicle and appeared to be looking 

for somewhere to run. The officer testified they first secured Glaze and then 

secured the driver of the Durango, Joshua Glaze, Curtis Glaze’s cousin.

Officers interviewed Glaze about the incident. A recording of the interview 

was admitted into evidence and played for the jury. During the interview, Glaze

first denied that he was involved in the shooting. Eventually, Glaze stated to them

that earlier that evening, while he and Joshua were driving down the road, a red or 

white truck ran them off the road. According to Glaze, after the encounter with the 

truck, Joshua followed the truck and drove right up behind it. Glaze did not know 

who occupied the truck, but speculated that it was someone that Joshua “had beef 

with.” Glaze recalled that Joshua drove to the intersection of Glaze Road and 

Highway 326 and blocked the roadway. Glaze said that Joshua and the driver of

the truck had a verbal altercation and then the man in the truck sped off down 

Highway 326 and Joshua pursued the truck. Glaze claimed that Joshua told him to 

“shoot them m----- f------s.” According to Glaze, Joshua threatened to shoot Glaze 

with a pistol if he did not shoot at the truck. Glaze stated in the interview that it 

was “kill or be killed[.]” Officers were unable to find any evidence to corroborate 
8

Glaze’s claim that Joshua possessed a pistol, and Glaze was unable to give him any 

kind of description of the pistol.

Later in the interview, Glaze claimed that he did not intend to kill anyone

that night. Glaze insisted that he did not shoot at a person, but shot at a truck. 

Glaze admitted to shooting a .30-06 rifle at the truck a single time. After shooting 

at the truck, he and Joshua turned around and went back to Glaze Road and hid his 

gun in his grandmother’s car and then went somewhere else. Officers located the 

rifle where Glaze indicated he had hidden it. The jurors also heard testimony that a 

.30-06 rifle is a firearm and is classified as a deadly weapon. 

Officers also interviewed Joshua about the shooting. The videotape of 

Joshua’s interview was admitted into evidence and played for the jury. During that 

interview, Joshua stated that he and Glaze saw a white truck driving recklessly 

down Glaze Road, which they believed did not belong on the road. Joshua stated 

that he and Glaze got in the Durango and went down the road to try to find out who 

was driving the truck. According to Joshua, he tried to stop the truck by passing it 

and blocking off Glaze Road, but the truck backed up, drove into the ditch, and 

went around him taking off down Highway 326 towards Kountze. Joshua stated 

that he then started to pursue the truck down Highway 326. He stated, “and, next 

thing I know, [Glaze] is shooting out his window” with a rifle. Joshua denied that 
9

he told Glaze to shoot at the truck. Joshua stated that he believed Glaze shot at the 

truck two or three times, but he was not certain because it all happened so fast. 

According to Joshua, he told Glaze to stop shooting, then turned the Durango

around and went back home. 

Mallory Wood testified that on the night of the incident, she and Glaze’s 

three-year-old son were in the truck with Glaze and his cousin, Joshua. Joshua was 

driving and Glaze was the passenger. She and the child were in the backseat. She 

testified that they were about to leave the grandmother’s house when they noticed 

another vehicle’s headlights coming down the road. She recalled that Glaze and 

Joshua started questioning who may have been in the vehicle. Wood testified that 

Joshua turned the lights of the Durango off and waited for the vehicle to pass. She 

testified that when the other vehicle was in view of the Durango, it “took off” 

towards Highway 326. She described the other vehicle as a white truck. She 

testified that Joshua started to pursue the white truck down Glaze Road. Wood 

testified that Joshua maneuvered in front of the white truck at the intersection of 

Highway 326 and Glaze Road and blocked the road. Joshua started to get out of the 

Durango to see who was in the white truck, but the white truck drove around the 

Durango and turned onto Highway 326 towards Kountze. Joshua proceeded to 

follow the white truck. She testified that once they were on Highway 326, Glaze 
10

leaned out the window and started shooting at the white truck with his .30-06 rifle. 

She testified that she saw the back window of the white truck shatter, the truck 

swerve, and then the truck stopped in the grass. She testified that Joshua turned the 

Durango around and returned to the grandmother’s house on Glaze Road. She 

testified that Joshua and Glaze went back to where they had left the white truck to 

see what had happened. According to Wood, Joshua and Glaze returned about ten 

minutes later and told her that they had discovered that they had shot the driver of 

the white truck in the head. 

Another officer with the Sheriff’s department testified that during his 

investigation of the crime scene, he observed the back of Drake’s white truck and 

saw that a bullet had gone through the back window. The jury also heard testimony

that a bullet impacted the back window of the white truck just above the rear 

headrest. The bullet then bypassed the rear headrest and struck Drake’s headrest. 

A correctional officer for Hardin County Sheriff’s Department testified that 

he was working on November 15, 2012, when he overheard Glaze make a 

statement to someone on the phone. The correctional officer testified that Glaze 

either said, “‘I got that m----- f---er’ or ‘I copped that m----- f---er[.]’” 

The record in this case shows that Glaze used a firearm to shoot at Drake’s 

truck, which he knew to be occupied. There is evidence that Glaze shot multiple 
11

times at Drake’s truck. After the shooting, Glaze fled the crime scene. The jury 

heard evidence that Glaze later returned to the scene and started seeking out the 

other occupants of the white truck and yelling out threats to them while they hid in 

the woods. Glaze contends that when he fired his weapon at the truck, he did not 

intend to kill Drake, that Joshua had forced him to shoot at the white truck after 

Joshua threatened him he could either “kill or be killed.” The jury, as the sole 

judge of the credibility of the witnesses, could have rejected Glaze’s contention 

and reasonably concluded from all of the evidence that Glaze intended to kill 

Drake by firing multiple shots, instead of just a single shot as Glaze contended,

from a high-powered rifle—a deadly weapon—at the back window of a vehicle he 

knew was occupied, ceasing his firing only after the truck swerved off of the 

roadway and rolled to a stop, and from the testimony of the prison guard having 

overheard Glaze’s subsequent statement on the telephone. Having examined the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that the jury could 

have determined beyond a reasonable doubt that Glaze intended to cause Drake’s 

death. Therefore, we conclude the evidence is legally sufficient to support Glaze’s 

conviction for murder. We overrule Glaze’s first issue.
12

Charge Error

In his second issue, Glaze contends the trial court erred by presenting a 

charge to the jury that allowed a non-unanimous verdict. He contends the trial 

court failed to clearly instruct the jury that it must be unanimous about which 

instance of criminal conduct applied, murder or the lesser-included offense of 

manslaughter. He maintains that the trial court’s instruction allowed the jury to 

reach “a unanimous decision” without first reaching a unanimous decision as to 

which criminal conduct the defendant committed.

We review a complaint of jury-charge error under a two-step process, 

considering first whether error exists. See Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738, 743 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2005). If error does exist, we then analyze that error for harm. Id.

When the defendant fails to object or states that he has no objection to the jury 

charge, an appellate court will not reverse for jury charge error unless the record 

shows egregious harm to the defendant. Ngo, 175 S.W.3d at 743-44.

Jury unanimity is required in all criminal cases. Ngo, 175 S.W.3d at 745.

The jury must “reach a unanimous verdict about the specific crime that the 

defendant committed.” Cosio v. State, 353 S.W.3d 766, 771 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2011). This means that the jury must agree that “the defendant committed the 

same, single, specific criminal act.” Ngo, 175 S.W.3d at 745. The Court of 
13

Criminal Appeals has recognized three variations that may result in nonunanimous verdicts: (1) “non-unanimity may occur when the State presents 

evidence demonstrating the repetition of the same criminal conduct, but the actual 

results of the conduct differed[;]” (2) “non-unanimity may occur when the State 

charges one offense and presents evidence that the defendant committed the 

charged offense on multiple but separate occasions[;]” and (3) “non-unanimity 

may occur when the State charges one offense and presents evidence of an offense, 

committed at a different time, that violated a different provision of the same 

criminal statute.” Cosio, 353 S.W.3d at 771-72. 

The facts in this case do not fall into any of the recognized variations that 

result in a non-unanimous verdict. See id. The indictment charged Glaze with 

intentionally or knowingly causing the death of Drake “by shooting him with a 

firearm[.]” The jury charge explained that murder “is when a person intentionally 

or knowingly causes [the] death of an individual.” The jury charge explained that 

manslaughter occurs when “[a] person . . . recklessly causes the death of an 

individual.” The trial court informed the jury that it must reach a unanimous 

decision, instructing the jury as follows: “After you have reached a unanimous 

decision, your foreman should sign the appropriate verdict attached to the charge.” 

The application paragraphs of the charge read as follows:
14

Now if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt 

that on or about the 14th day of November, 2012, in Hardin County, 

Texas, the defendant, Curtis Glaze, did then and there intentionally or 

knowingly cause the death of Brian Drake, Jr., by shooting him with a 

firearm, and the defendant did then and there use or exhibit a deadly 

weapon, to-wit: a firearm, you will find the defendant guilty of 

murder as alleged in the indictment. Unless you so find, or if you have 

a reasonable doubt thereof, and you shall find the Defendant NOT 

GUILTY of MURDER and next consider whether the defendant did 

then and there recklessly cause the death of an individual, namely: 

Brian Drake Jr., by shooting him with a deadly weapon, to-wit: a 

firearm, you shall find the defendant GUILTY of the lesser included 

offense of MANSLAUGHTER.

Unless you so find, or if you have a reasonable doubt thereof, 

you shall find the defendant NOT GUILTY.

Unless you so find from the evidence beyond a reasonable 

doubt, or if you have a reasonable doubt thereof, you will find the 

defendant not guilty.

The jury returned a verdict stating, “WE THE JURY, find the Defendant, CURTIS 

GLAZE, GUILTY of the offense of MURDER, as alleged in the indictment.” The 

jury charge required the jury to reach a unanimous decision before it could 

complete the verdict form. The charge, as submitted, did not allow for a nonunanimous verdict. We find this issue without merit and overrule Glaze’s second 

issue.

Having overruled both of Glaze’s issues, we affirm the judgment of the trial 

court.
15

AFFIRMED.

______________________________

 CHARLES KREGER

 Justice

Submitted on January 6, 2015

Opinion Delivered September 30, 2015

Do not publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.