Opinion issued July 6, 202 1

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 19 - 00942 - CR

——————————— DOMINIQUE CURRY , Ap pella nt

V. THE STATE O F TEXAS , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 339th District Court

Harris County, Texas T ria l Court Ca se No. 1521008

MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury found appellant, Dominique Curry, guilty of murder , and the trial court assessed his p un ishment a t imp risonment for 40 years. In his sole appellate issue, Curry argues that the trial court erred in de nyi ng his motion for directed verdict because the eviden ce was insufficient to p rove that the complainant was murdered2

or that he was criminally responsible for he r death. Because we conclude that there

was sufficient eviden ce for the jury to have rationally found Curry guilt y beyond a reasonable doubt , we affirm. Background T he compla ina nt in this case , Brenae Thompson , was dating Curry

. In August 2016, Thompson was living at the Catalin a Vill a ge Apartments in Harris C ounty , T exas . On the m orning of August 7, 2016, Thompson entered the apartment complex dri ving he r black Toyota Camry at 6:11 a.m. , and a security video showed that she was driving with an unidentifiable person in the pass enger seat. On e of Thompson ’ s downstairs neighbors , Sammy Curtis, hear d som ething like “ tussling ” or fight ing

— a frequent occurrence at Thompson ’ s ap artment

— and then a pop that sounded like a gunshot. The gunshot woke Sa m my Curtis ’ s wife, Tamika Curtis , and they heard someone walking down the st airs. Sammy Curtis went to look out his window and

saw a man get into the black Camry and drive away. Tamika Curtis likewise saw the black Camry speed away

. S ecurity vid eos show ed t hat the vehicle exited the complex at 6:23 a.m. Thompson ’ s ne xt

- door neighbor , April Morris, walked out of her apartment at ap proximately 6:30 a.m. on her way to work , and she saw Thompson laying on the ground outside her own apartment bleeding from what a ppeared to be a head wound. Morris called 9

- 1

- 1, but Thompson was already dead when the param edics3

arrived

. The paramedic who responded t o the phone call op ened Thompson ’ s apartme nt door . He saw a gun just inside the apartment and decided t o wait for p olice to arrive before searching for additional victims

. H ou ston P olice D epartment Dete ctive C. Hogue tes tified th at he was called t o the scene of the shooting to invest igate what had bee n cate gorized as a “ susp icious suicide. ” On ce he arrived, however, h e determined that the shooting was a hom icide, based on the facts that Thompson ’ s body was outside her apa rtment, t he door was closed, and the weapon was i nside th e a partment. He did not believe the s cene of the shooting was consistent with a suicide

. Pol i ce found a . 40 caliber black and silve r hand gun at the scene with a n empty casing nearby

. Police were abl e to dete rmine that Thompson ’ s veh i cle was missing and began a search for the Camry. Th ompson ’ s vehicle was recovered from a hotel parking lot three d ays after the shooting . The keys , with her blood on them, were in th e i gnition and her g love box was open. Her wall et, containing identification and credit car ds,

w as in the glove box. Du ring the subsequent investigation, p olice determine d that Curry and Thompson had been in a dating relationship

. The police al so traced the handgun recovered at the scene of t he shooti ng to its original purchaser, who in turn pointed them toward Curry. The police interviewed C urry , who told police that Tho m pson had picked him up and drove them to her apartment

. Curry said that she was mad at4

him because he h ad been cheating on her , and she threatened him with the gun

— a gun he acknowledged belonged to him

. He told police that he tried to leave, and then she c omm itted suicide. He s tated that she fell in the living room, and h e panicked and left in her car

. Curry denied shooting Th om pson . C urry was indicted f

or Thom pson ’ s murder based on a llegations that he shot her with a firearm. At trial, in addition to the a bove evidence, the State presented testi mony fr om the medical examiner. He testified that Thom p son had been s hot in the fac e, with t he bullet fract uring several of her te eth before perforating her left carotid artery and jugular vein and then traveling to her chest cavity and perforating a lung. The medical examiner stated that the trajectory of the projectile was

“ do w nwards , front to ba ck and r ight to left

. ” Based on other damage and st ippling at the entry site, the medica l examiner testified that the gun was not tou chi ng her face at the ti me it was fired but it also could not have been more than two to five feet away. The med ical exam iner further testified that the manner and cause of death was homicide with a firearm, and he stated that the wound traject ory w as not con sistent with a self

- in fl icted gunshot. Kristina May, a forensic chemis t, testified that Thompson ’ s hands were tested f or gunshot residue. Thompson tested positive for gunshot residue on her right hand, and she was negative for gunshot residu e on her left h and. May specifically testified that there were eight gunshot residue particles on the s wab from T hompson ’ s r ight5

hand , “ which is a positive result for gunshot residue indicating that the individual likely had some sort of association with t he discharge of a firearm. ” May further explained that “ association with the discharge of a firearm ” “ can mean that they fir ed the we apon, were in close proximity to the weapon when it was fired, or touched something that had [gunshot resi d u e] o n it. ” Ni kitra Pac e, who had also dated Curry, testified that she ha d seen C urry with
a gun o n two occasion s. She desc ribed i t as a b lack and silver hand gun, .40 or .45 cal iber. On on e occasion , Curry had left his gun out while a f ri end ’ s young child visited , and P ace “ was u pset ” tha t the child could reach it , so she put it away. On another occasion, she observed Curry and a f riend “ pla ying like they were going to shoot each other

. ” She also knew that Curry and Thompson were a cquainted, because she had seen Thomp son ’ s c ontact inf ormation in Curry ’ s phone and had seen the two having conve rsations. She testified that Curry called her sever al times on the day that Thompson was murdered. Curry gave her some dirty clothes and a cell phone to get rid of , and she complied. She t h rew the clothing away because the items were muddy, wet, and “ smelled bad. ” She gave the phone to a f riend, but after police c o ntacted her, she retrieved the phone and turned it over to police. The police did not obtain any information useful to the investigation from the cell p hone. After the State rested , Curry moved for a directed verdict on the basis that the evidence was insu fficient to convict him of Thompson ’ s murder. The trial court6

denied th e motion. The jury convicted Curry of murder , and th e trial court assessed his pun ishment at 40 years ’ imprisonment

. Sufficiency of the Evidence In his sole issu e on appeal, Cu rry argue s th at the trial court erred in denying his timely motion for directed verdic t becau s e th e evidence was legally insufficien t to support his murder conviction. A. Standard of Review We review a challenge to a trial court ’ s denial of a motion for dire cted or i nstructed verdict as a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the eviden ce. See Canales v. State , 98 S.W.3d 690, 693 (Tex. C rim. App. 2003); Willia ms v. State , 582 S.W.3d 692, 700 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, pet. ref ’ d)

. When determining

w hether th er e is sufficient evidence to support a criminal conviction, we consider the combined and cumulative force of all admitted evidence in the light m ost favorable to the verdict to deter mine whether, based on that evidence and the reasonable inferenc es theref ro m, a jury was rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 318

– 19 (1979) ; Tate v. State , 500 S.W.3d 410, 413 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). We examine all the evidence in the light most favorable t o the jur y ’ s verdict to determine whether any “rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jack son , 443 U.S. at 318

– 19; Williams v. State , 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex.7

Crim. App. 2007). In our suffic iency rev ie w, we con sider all the evidence in the record , whether direct or circumstantial, properly or improperly admitted, or subm itted by the prosecutio n or the defense. Jenkins v. State , 493 S.W.3d 583, 599 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016)

. T he jury is the sole judge of cr edibility and weight to be attached to the testimony of witnesses, and juries may draw multiple reasonable inferences fro m the facts so long as each is supported by the evidence presented at trial. Tate , 500 S.W.3d at 413. B. Analysis Curry argues that ther e was no evid ence that he committed the offense of murder and that the fore nsic evidence and testimony of the S t ate ’ s exper ts created a reasonable doubt a bout the manner of T h ompson ’ s death. He assert s, “ Ul timately, the evidence was legally insuff icient to p rove: 1 ) what type of conduct caused her deat h; 2) whose conduct caused t he death; and 3) whether the conduct was committ ed with the requisite m ens rea. ” Curry ass erts that the evidence that Tho mpson was murdered, rather than committed suicide , was based on “ little more than the fact that [the] m edical examiner concluded that the manner of death was homicide based on an est imation of the trajecto ry of the gunshot. ” This is a mi scharacterization of the evidence. Security video s from the apartment complex showed that someone was with Thompson when she arrived at the apartment complex just minutes before the8

shooting and that s omeone left in her car immediately after

. Thompson ’ s downstairs neighbor , Sammy Curtis , heard a scuffle or fight followed by a pop th at sounded like

a gun shot. Curtis looked out his front wi ndow and saw a man get into a black Camr y and speed away. Whoever fought with Thompson f led without calling for help; rather , Thompson ’ s neighbor, Morri s, found her and called 9

- 1

- 1. Thomps on ’ s body was laying o utside her apartment, and the gun was found inside the closed apartment, several f eet away from her and behind a closed door

. Her car w as found abandoned days later, wi th her blood on t he keys, indicating that someone who had interact ed with h er bleeding bod y had also touched the keys and dr i ve n the car. Detective Hogue testified based on his training and ex perience that he believ ed Thompson ’ s death was a homicide , rather than a suicide. The medical examiner traced the trajectory of th e bullet

— from its entry at Thompson ’ s lower lip, “ do w nwards , front to ba ck and r ight to left ” through her neck to her left lun g

— and testified that it was
not consistent with a self

- in fli cted wound. This evidence is sufficient for a jury to conclude beyond a reasona ble doubt that Thompson was m urdered. See Jackson , 443 U.S. at 318

– 19; Williams , 235 S.W.3d at 750

. Curry points to testimony from Kristina May, the forensic chemi st, that
T hom pson had gunshot residue on her right hand. May test i fied that the “ po sitive

re sult for gunshot residue indicat [ed] that the individual likely had some sort of association with the discharge of a firearm. ” May further e xplained that “ association9

with the discharge of a firearm ” could mean that she “ fired the weapon, [was] in close pr oximity to the weapon when it was fired, or touched something that had [ gunshot residue] on it. ” Th is testimony does not compel a conclusion th at Thom pson shot herself. The jury could have concluded that she came into contact with gunshot res idue because t he firearm was fired in close proximity to her body or as part of the “ tussle ” or fight overheard by neighbors

. When considered along with
t he combined and cumulative force of all admitted evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict , we ca nnot conc lude that the gun shot

- residue evidence was

so s ignificant as to prevent the jury from concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that a murder occ urred

. See Jackson , 443 U.S. at 318

– 19 ; Tate , 500 S.W.3d at 413

. Curry further asserts that the State “ had no DNA ev idence to tie [him] to the scene or to the vehicle belonging to [Thom pson ]. ” He points out that, although there

were several witnesses at th e apartm ent, none of them could identify him as being involved with the shooting. We o bserve, however, that neither eyewit ness testimony nor DNA evidence is necessary to support a conviction for murder. See Gardner v

. State , 306 S.W. 3d 274, 285

– 86 (Tex. Cr im. App. 2009) ( holding that evidence was

s ufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that defendant murdered vi ctim despite lack of eyewitness testimony ); Pena v. State , 441 S.W.3d 635, 641 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet . ref ’ d ) (holding that Texas l aw does not require DNA10

or fingerprint evidenc e t o support criminal conviction and that lack of such eviden ce d oes not affect sufficiency of other evidence introduced at trial).
T h e State presented evidence that Curry and Thompson h ad a dat in g relati onship. C urry made a statement to police indicating that he was present when Thompson shot herself. 1 He further ackn owl edged owning the gun recovered from the scene, and P ace likewise testified that Curry owned a gun like the one that kil led Thompson. The jury was entitled to believe Curry ’ s statement that he was present at the time of the shooting but discre dit his a cc ount of who pu lled the trigger , especially in light of the medical examiner ’ s testimony that Thompson ’ s injury was not

con sistent with a self

- in flict ed gunshot

. See Lancon v. State , 253 S.W.3d 699, 707 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) ( jury may reject any part o r al l of witness ’ s testimony in order to reconcile conflicts ) ; see also Tate , 500 S.W.3d at 413 (holding that jury is sole jud ge of cr edibility and weigh t of witnesses ’ testimony and may draw multiple reasonable inferences from facts so long as each is sup port ed by evidence presented at trial ). Finally, Curry arg ues th ere was no evidence that he knowingly or intentionally killed Thompson. M ental state can be inferred from actions, i ncluding actions such

as us e of a deadly weapon and fleeing the scene instea d of calling for assistance

. See

1 Although Curry makes a passing statement th at his statement to police was
“ i ncredibly coercive, ” he does not challenge the admissibility of the record ed statement.11

T EX
. P ENAL C ODE § 1.07(a)(17) (p roviding that firearm is deadly w eapon ) ; Guevara v. State , 1 52 S.W.3d 45, 50 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (“Intent may also be inferred from circumstantial evidence such as act s, words, and the con duct of the appellant.”) ; see also Devoe v . State , 354 S.W.3d 457, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (rec ognizing that flight is cir cumstance from which inference of guilt may be drawn) ; Adanandus v. State , 866 S.W.2d 210, 215 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (recognizing that jury may infer defenda nt ’ s intent to commit murder from his use of deadly weapon in deadly ma nner and such inference is almost always conclusive) ; Womble v. State , 618 S.W.2d 59, 64

– 65 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) ( “ [W] here a deadly weapon is fired at close ran ge and death results the law presumes an intent to kill

. ” ). We overrule Curry ’ s sole issue.12 Conclusion We affi rm the judgment of the trial court.

Richard Hightower Justice Panel consists of Justices High tower, Countiss, and Farris. Do no t publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b).