Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 21, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00166-CR

ANTWAIN MAURICE BURKS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 400th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 12-DCR-061196

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a single issue, appellant Antwain Maurice Burks challenges the 

sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for tampering with evidence. 

We affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Appellant and the complainant, Dontay Leonard, were together on the night 

the complainant was murdered. That evening, appellant drove the complainant to a 
2

night club. The complainant was in appellant’s company at 1:03 a.m., when the 

complainant spoke with his girlfriend on the telephone. Within twenty minutes of 

that phone call, the complainant’s dead body lay face down in the street. The 

cause of death was two gunshot wounds. 

Appellant relayed different stories to different people about what happened 

that night. He generally maintained that the complainant got into a fight with a 

club patron and that at least one individual approached them while they were in 

their car on the way home and killed the complainant. Appellant also admitted to 

one person that he pushed the complainant out of his vehicle and into the street.

Appellant was arrested and charged with tampering with evidence, a second 

degree felony because the evidence was a human corpse. Appellant pleaded “not 

guilty.” At trial, the jury found appellant guilty and assessed punishment at sixteen 

years’ confinement.

II. TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE

Appellant asserts the evidence is legally insufficient to prove beyond a 

reasonable doubt that the complainant was dead when he left appellant’s vehicle. 

In other words, appellant argues the evidence is legally insufficient to prove that he 

altered, concealed, or destroyed the complainant’s corpse as opposed to the

complainant’s mortally-wounded body.

In evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a 

criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

verdict. Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The 

issue on appeal is not whether we, as a court, believe the State’s evidence or 

believe the appellant’s evidence outweighs the State’s evidence. Wicker v. State, 

667 S.W.2d 137, 143 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). The verdict may not be overturned 
3

unless it is irrational or unsupported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Matson 

v. State, 819 S.W. 2d 839, 846 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The trier of fact “is the 

sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and of the strength of the evidence.” 

Fuentes v. State, 991 S.W.2d 267, 271 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). The trier of fact 

may choose to believe or disbelieve any portion of the witnesses’ testimony. 

Sharp v. State, 707 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). When faced with 

conflicting evidence, we presume that the trier of fact resolved conflicts in favor of 

the prevailing party. Turro v. State, 867 S.W.2d 43, 47 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). 

Therefore, if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of 

the crime beyond reasonable doubt, we must affirm. McDuff v. State, 939 S.W.2d 

607, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

The indictment alleged that appellant tampered with the corpse of the 

complainant with the intent to impair its availability as evidence in a subsequent 

investigation or official proceeding. A person commits the offense if, knowing 

that an investigation or official proceeding is pending or in progress, the person 

alters, destroys, or conceals a human corpse with intent to impair its verity, 

legibility, or availability as evidence in the investigation or official proceeding. 

See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 37.09 (West 2014); Williams v. State, 270 S.W.3d 

140, 142 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

The record contains evidence of the following sequential events leading up 

to and following the complainant’s death: 

• On the night the complainant was killed, appellant gave the complainant 

a ride home from jail after the complainant was bonded out of jail.

• The complainant was in jail for a charge related to his conduct towards 

the complainant’s girlfriend.

• After the complainant was bonded out of jail, the complainant and 

appellant left, stating that they intended to go to a club.
4

• A witness encountered the complainant’s body, face down on the street. 

The witness estimated the time was between 1:20 a.m. and 1:30 a.m. The 

witness then called police.

• Police received a call at 1:46 a.m. and arrived on the scene at 1:50 a.m. 

The paramedics in the ambulance arrived on the scene and determined 

the complainant was dead. The police could not find any eyewitnesses or 

anyone who heard gunshots in the area. 

• After the complainant’s brother learned the complainant had been killed, 

the complainant’s brother called appellant. At first appellant would not 

speak with him. Appellant finally told the complainant’s brother that 

appellant and the complainant had gone to the night club and the 

complainant had gotten into an altercation with someone. Then, 

appellant and the complainant left the club and were joy riding and 

smoking when someone approached the car and put a gun to the 

complainant’s head. Appellant took off running. Appellant stated that 

the gun shot two times and then it jammed. The complainant’s brother 

asked appellant how he knew the gun jammed but apparently did not 

receive an answer. 

• Appellant’s account seemed improbable to the complainant’s brother 

because appellant was injured and using a cane to walk at the time. 

Appellant did not call anyone after the shooting.

• Appellant’s girlfriend spoke to appellant at 1:03 a.m., but could not get in 

touch with him after that time.

• Appellant’s sister testified that appellant told her several conflicting 

accounts about what happened that night. In one of the accounts 

appellant indicated he pushed the complainant out of his vehicle.

• The mother of one of the complainant’s children testified that she spoke 

with appellant and asked him whether the complainant died instantly. 

Appellant indicated that the complainant did not make any sounds.

• The aunt of one of the complainant’s children testified that she spoke 

with appellant and appellant advised that he did not kill the complainant, 

but he did push him out of the car.

The record also contains testimony about the physical evidence in 

appellant’s car and at the scene where the complainant’s body was discovered: 
5

• The medical examiner testified that the complainant suffered two gunshot 

wounds. The first shot went through the complainant’s chest and into his 

abdomen, where it caused damage to the liver. The medical examiner 

testified that the first gunshot was not immediately life-threatening 

because of its location, but without medical treatment could be fatal. The 

second gunshot entered the left side of appellant’s chest and caused 

damage to the left lung and to the heart and also the liver. The medical 

examiner did not discuss whether or not the second gunshot was 

immediately life-threatening.

• Officer Chi Thanh Nguyen testified that he found a bullet that looked like 

it may have misfired. Officer Nguyen explained it was a whole bullet 

that was indented as if someone had attempted to fire it, but it had not 

fired properly.

• Detective Richard Martinez testified that when he discovered the 

complainant, the complainant’s blood was mostly concentrated around 

his waist area. The way the blood was pooled suggested he was probably 

seated somewhere and was there long enough for the blood to soak in 

around his waist and buttocks area.

• Detective Martinez testified that the complainant had a tear in his boxer 

shorts and an abrasion under his right eye. Detective Martinez said the 

tear could have come from being pushed out of the car and the abrasion 

under the right eye was related either to being pushed out of the car or 

resulted from an altercation.

• Police officers searched appellant’s car. They found blood stains in the 

front seat of the passenger side of the car. Bao Nguyen from the crime 

lab testified that, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, excluding 

an identical twin, the blood contained in appellant’s passenger seat 

belonged to the complainant.

• Detective Martinez testified that appellant’s car was cleaned after the 

night of the complainant’s murder.

• The medical examiner testified that the abrasion on the complainant’s

face was consistent with the skin being scraped over a rough surface. 

The medical examiner noted similar abrasions to the complainant’s right 

knee. The medical examiner testified that being pushed out of a vehicle 

could cause these injuries.

• Photographs from the scene showed a trail of blood. The blood was not 

pooled in the way it would flow if the blood were flowing onto the 
6

concrete from the complainant’s body. Instead, the blood trailed in

straight lines, which suggested that it resulted from the body being 

dragged.

To find appellant guilty of tampering with evidence, the jury needed to find 

that appellant, knowing an investigation or official proceeding is pending or in 

progress, altered, destroyed, or concealed, the complainant’s body with intent to 

impair its verity, legibility, or availability as evidence.1

 Appellant’s central 

argument is that without evidence of the “golden hour” at which the complainant 

died, there is no evidence that the complaint died either in appellant’s car or before 

exiting appellant’s car, however that occurred. We disagree. There is both lay 

testimony and expert testimony about the physical evidence from which a rational 

jury could have determined that the complaint was dead at the time he exited 

appellant’s vehicle. 

As to the physical evidence, the jury heard from the medical examiner that 

the complainant died from two gunshot wounds, but no witnesses near the 

complainant’s body heard or saw anything, even though at least one witness was at 

home and awake at the time of the murder, near the area where the complainant’s 

body was found. These facts support an inference that the gunshots occurred 

elsewhere. The jury also heard evidence from a police officer and the medical 

examiner that the way the complainant’s blood pooled led them to believe the 

 1 Appellant does not assert the evidence is insufficient to show he knew an investigation 

or official proceeding was pending or in progress. Even if appellant had asserted these claims, 

we would conclude the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. See Williams, 270 

S.W.3d at 144–45. To the extent appellant argues the evidence is insufficient to prove he altered, 

concealed, or destroyed a corpse, the record contains sufficient evidence to support the jury’s 

verdict. For example, the jury heard evidence that appellant moved the complainant’s body, an 

act that altered the body’s location. See Carnley v. State, 366 S.W.3d 830, 836 (Tex. App.—Fort 

Worth 2012, pet. ref’d); Ramos v. State, 351 S.W.3d 913, 914–15 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011, 

pet. ref’d) (holding evidence sufficient to support conviction for tampering with evidence where 

the record contained evidence the defendant dragged a body). The jury also heard evidence that 

appellant’s actions altered the physical state of the complainant’s body. See Carnley, 366 

S.W.3d at 836; Ramos, 351 S.W.3d at 914–15.
7

complainant was seated when he died. The complainant’s blood was found in 

appellant’s car, which confirms testimony that the complainant was in appellant’s 

car when the complainant died. The photos before the jury show the complainant’s 

body and two even trails of blood. In the photos, other than the trails of blood and 

the substantial amount of blood soaked into the complainant’s clothing, there is no 

blood surrounding the complainant’s body. The medical examiner testified that the 

even trails of blood resulted from blood dripping off a body that was being 

dragged; they did not result from blood flowing out of a body. The medical 

examiner explained that blood flowing from a body clots and pools in a way not 

present in the photos. The jury reasonably could have concluded from this 

testimony that appellant’s blood had stopped flowing from his body by the time his 

body was moved. 

Appellant notes that no witness stated the exact time of the complainant’s 

death and the medical examiner testified that one of the gunshot wounds was not 

immediately life-threatening based on its location. The lay testimony also supports 

a rational determination that the complaint was dead when his body left appellant’s 

vehicle. Although no witness stated the exact time of the complainant’s death, the 

jury had evidence that appellant admitted the complainant was dead before 

appellant pushed his body out of the car. Specifically, the mother of the 

complainant’s child testified that she spoke with appellant after the complainant’s 

death. The mother wanted to know whether the complainant suffered or died 

instantly and appellant told her the complainant made no sounds, which suggests 

he died instantly. 

In sum, expert testimony that the physical evidence points to blood ceasing 

to flow from the complainant’s body before it left the vehicle and gunshot wounds 

consistent with a rapid death coupled with lay testimony about appellant’s 
8

eyewitness account of the complainant’s death support the jury’s conclusion that 

appellant tampered with a human corpse. See Ramos, 351 S.W.3d at 914–15.

The jury’s verdict is supported by sufficient evidence. See id. Accordingly, 

we overrule appellant’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/s/ Kem Thompson Frost

Chief Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and McCally.

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