NO. 07-0 6-00 10-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL C MA Y25, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ LARRY BRENT KIT CHENS, APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 28 7 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF B AI L EY CO UNT Y; TH NO . 230 5; H ON ORABLE GOR DO N H. GR EEN , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. OPIN ION Appel lan t, Lar ry

Brent K it chens , w as conv icted of the offense of capi tal murder and sent enced to li fe. By his firs t tw o is sues , Appel lan t all eg es the tr ial court co m m it ted rev ersible error by den y ing his motion to quash th e indictm entand byo ve rr uling his2

obje ction to t he court’s charge. B y a t hird and f inal issue, he a lleges that th e evidence is l eg al l y in s uffi c i en t t o s up po rt th e c on v i c ti on for c ap i ta l mu rde r . F i nd i ng n o er ror , w e affi r m. Back ground Facts On O cto ber

10, 2003, Vi nce Si mnacher , Ap pel lan t’ s e x -w ife, R honda K it chens , and other fri ends g athered atSi mnacher ’s hous e for a par ty to cel ebrate the anni v ersar y of the divorce between App ellantand Rhond a. During the party, App ellantente red the residence w it h a loa ded SK S s emi- automati c a ss aul t r ifle and beg an s hooti ng . W hen t he s hooti ng w as ov er , Vi nce Si mnacher , Rho nda Ki tch ens, and Der w in Beauc hamp w ere dead. Appel lan t l eft the S imnac her resi dence , retur ned t o hi s o w n res id e nce, and aw ait ed th e pol ic e. Shor

tl y thereafter, he sur re ndered hims elf to a Dep artment of Publi c S afetytrooper and he w as transpo rt ed to the Bai ley C ounty Ja il

. Appell ant w as charg ed w it h c api tal mu rder. The Stat e’s theo ry

of the c ase w as that Appel lan t was u psetaboutthe si tuati on sur ro undi ng hi s e x -w ife, t hat h e entere d the Si mnacher resi dence , w it hout the c onsen t of the o w ner

and w it h the i n tent to c ommit an as saul t, and t hat w hil e i n the co urse of commi tti ng thatburg lar y , he did i ntent ion all y

sh oot a nd k il l Vi nce Si mnacher

. A nal ysis By his f irst issue, App ellant c o n t end s the trial court erred w hen it ov erruled h is moti on to q uash the i ndi ctme n t for fail ure to all eg e the co nst it uent ele ments of the3

u n d e rlyin g of

fe n se of bu rgla ry. Sp e cif ica lly, h e co m p la in s t h a t t h e in d ict m e n t d id no t a lle ge w hic h the or

y of burg lar

y the Stat e i ntended to prov e. That moti on w as ov er ru led

. A person commi ts the offense of c api tal murde r if the person int enti onal ly ca uses t h e d e a t h o f

a n in d ivi d u a l i n t h e co u rs e o f c o m m it t in g o r a t t e m p t in g t o c o m m ita b u rg la ry. Te x . Penal Co d e A n n . § 1 9

. 0 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( V e r n o n S u p p . 2 0 0 6 )

. U n d e r t h e p ro v i s i o n s o f § 30.02( a) of

the Tex as Penal Code, a perso n commits the offense of burg lar y i f that pe rs on enters a habi tati on, w it hout the e ffect iv e c onsen t of the ow ner (1) w it h intentto commi t a felony , t heft, or

an a ss aul t; o r (2 ) commi ts or att empts to c ommit a felony , t heft, or an ass aul t. A p erson commi ts the o ffense of assa ulti f the person int enti onal ly , k now ing ly , or re ck les sl y

ca uses bodi ly

i nju ry to another ; i ntent ion all y or kn ow ing ly

threatens anot her

w it h immi nent bodi ly

inju ry ; or int enti onal ly

or kn ow ing ly

ca uses phy si cal co ntac t w it h anot her w hen t he person knows or shoul d reas onabl y beli ev e that the other person w il l re g ard the cont actas offensi v e or prov ocat iv e. Id. at § 22 .01 (a). The i n d i c t me n t i n t h i s c a s e a l l e g e s t h a t A p p e l l a n t “ o n o r a b o u t t h e 1 0 t h d a y of O c t o b e r, 2003 , . . . did the n an d the re inten tiona lly cause the de ath of

an individual, nam ely, Vince Simn ache r, by shoo ting him w ith a rif le, an d [Ap pellan t] w as the n an d the re in the course of

comm itting or attem pting to com mit th e of fense of burglary of the reside nce of Vince Sim nach er, w ho was the owner of the reside nce. ” The Co urt of C ri minal Appea ls has repeated ly hel d tha t an ind ictment need no t all eg e the co nst it uent e le m e n ts of the ag g ra v ati ng feature w hic h el ev ates a murder to4

capi tal murder

. E.g. , Al ba v . St ate, 905 S.W .2d 581, 585 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1995) ( murde r in the c ourse of committi n g burg lar y ); Bar nes v. State, 876 S. W .2d 3 16, 3 22 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1994) ( murde r in the c ourse of committi ng burg lar y ); Beatha rd

v . St ate, 767 S.W .2d 423 , 431 (Tex.Crim.App . 198 9) (murde r in th e course of comm itting burglary ); Ma rq uez v. Sta te, 725 S.W

. 2 d 217, 236 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1987) , abr ogated on ot

her gr ounds by Mo ody

v . St ate, 827 S. W .2d 8 75 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1992) ( murde r in the c ourse of commi tti ng agg ra v ated sex ual as saul t) ; Hog ue v . St ate, 711 S. W .2d 9 , 14 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1986) ( murde r in the c ourse of committi ng arson) ; Ham m ett v. State, 578 S. W .2d 6 99, 7 08 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1979) ( murde r in the c ourse of committi ng robber y ). Appel lan t doe s n ot prov ide any auth or ity

w hic h ex cept s the facts and ci rc umstan ces of this case f ro m thi s g eneral r ule

. Ins tead, he arg ues that itw as er ro r to fail to re q uire the Sta te to allege tho se elem ent s beca use h is ability to prep are his de fense w as “substa ntially impacted” by

the lac k o f speci fic n oti ce as to w hic h the or y of burg lar

y the S tate int ended to prov e. He arg ues that his co unsel w as forced to attemptto dis credi t al l tes ti mony that coul d pos si bly

es tabl is h any

of the t heor ies of burg lar y that mig ht be arg ued from the fact s of the c ase. U nder

the facts of this ca se, burg lar y mig ht be es tabl is hed by sh ow ing that Appel lan t e n te re d the Si mnacher resi dence w it h the i ntentto commi t a felony , t heft, or ass aul t. Simil ar ly , an ass aul t mi g ht be es tabl is hed by sh ow ing thatAppel lan t had the int ent to cause b odily injury, threa ten im min entb odily injury , or make of fensive physical contact w it h Vi nce Si mnacher , R honda K it chens , or any othe r par

ty g uest

.5

W hil e the tas k p re sent ed to Appel lan t’ s c ounse l mayhav e been formida ble , t he dil emma he faced w as no di fferent t han t hat faced by co unsel i n Alba, B ar nes, or Be a th a rd

. W e s e e n o c o mp e l l i n g re a s o n t o d i s t i n g u i s h t h i s c a s e fro m t h e l i n e of cas es w hic h hav e hel d tha t t he speci fic theor y of burg lar y need not be alle g ed in a capi tal murder indictm entbase d up on th e a gg rav ating of fense of burglary . Appe llant’s f irst issue is ov er ru led

. By hi s s econd iss ue, A ppel lan t c ontends the tr ial co urt er re d by su bmitti ng the defini ti on of burg lar

y w it h i ntentto commi t as saul t in the charg e. H e furt her co ntends that the s ubmis si on w as er ro r bec a u se itauth or iz ed th e j ur y to conv ict hi m on a theor y not all eg ed i n the i ndi ctment

. App ellantcomp lains ab outthatportion of the cha rg e tha t reads a s follows: A person commi ts burg lar y , if, w it hout the effect iv e cons ent of t he ow ner , t he person int enti onal ly

or kn ow ing ly

ente rs a bu il din g and commit s o r attempt s t o comm it an assa ult. Assau lt is comm itted if th e pe rson: (1) inten tiona lly, knowingl y , or recklessly ca uses bod ily

in jury to ano the r, . . . ( 2) inten tiona lly or kn ow ing ly

threatens anot her

w it h i mminentbodily in jury , . . . or ( 3) int enti onal ly

or kn ow ing ly

ca uses [offensiv e phy si cal co ntac t]. Appel lan t arg ues that the a ddi ti on of the ele ments of burg lar y , t o- w it : ent ry

i nto a bui ldi ng and the c ommis si on or att empted c ommis si on of an as saul t and the addi ti on of the defini ti on of assa ultco nst it utes fundamental er ro r becau se they enl arg e the i ndi ctment b y a u t h o r i z i n g a c o n v i c t i o n o n o n e o r m o re t h e o r i e s n o ta l l e g e d i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t

. W e dis ag re e.6

The in dictment re q uires proof of murder i ntent ion all y

co m mitt ed “ in the c ourse of commi tti ng or

att empti ng to commi t t he offense of burg lar y . . . .” I n order

to understa nd th e c o n c e p to f

b u rg la ry, t h e ju ry wa s e n t it le d t o a st a t u t o ri ly c o rr e c td e f in it io n o f b u rg la ry. Beca use the ind ictment need not all eg e the spec ific theor y of bu rg lar

y re li ed upon by

the prosec uti on, t he tr ial co urt w as li mite d, no t by any sp eci fic a ll eg ati on, b ut by the ev ide nce. The ev ide nce int ro duced i n thi s c ause supp orted the St ate’ s t heor y thatAppel lan t ent ered the S imnac her

r e sid e n ce w it hout cons ent a nd c ommitt ed or att empted t o c ommit the offense of assa ult . As suc h, the jur y w as re q uired to understa nd th e proper l eg al defini ti on of both burg lar

y and ass aul t. The charge a t i ss ue does not per mit nor req uire proof different than that re q uired by the in d ict m ent. In order to hav e a c lea r understa ndi ng of it s d uty and pur pose, the charge of

the cou rt should conta in a statu torily correct def inition of any legal term or phrase that the j ur

y mustnec ess ar il y

us e i n order

to proper ly

resol v e an is sue. W

ats on v . St ate, 548 S. W .2d 6 76, 6 79 (T e x .C ri m.App. 1977) ; T hom as v. State, 474 S. W .2d 6 92, 6 95 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1972) ; Pa rs ons v. State, 191 S.W .3d 862, 864 ( Tex .App. –W aco 2006, pet. re f’d) ; N g uy en v. Sta te, 811 S. W .2d 1 65, 1 67 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 Dis t.] 1991, pet. st re f’d)

. Beca use the j ur

y w as cal led upon to understa nd the concept s o f both burg lar y and ass aul t, the t ri al cour

t di d not err

byincl udi ng these definit ion s. Appell ant’ s s econd i ss ue is ov er ru led

.7 By hi s fin al is sue, rely ing on Gar re tt v. State, 573 S. W .2 d 5 4 3 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1978) , Ap pel lan t ass erts that the e v ide nce w as leg all y i nsuffici ent t o s uppor

t hi s c onv icti on for capita l mu rder beca use burglary w ith inten t to comm it assau lt against a spe cif ic v ictim cann ot be used to enh anc e t h e m u rder of thatv ictim to ca pital m urde r. In othe r w ords, Appel lan t c ontends thatthe ind ictment in thi s c ase re q uired th e St ate t o prov e tha t t he int ended v icti m of the ass aul t w as someone other than the v icti m of the murder and that the e v ide nce w as, therefore, leg all y i nsuffici ent t o s uppor

t t he j ur y ’s v erdict. At t he out set , i t s houl d be obser v ed th at a lt houg h Appe ll ant c omplai ns about the legal suf f iciency of

the evidence , his groun d is in reality a challen ge to the Sta te’s the ory of pros ecut ion embodi ed i n the i ndi ctment

. In Gar re tt, the Court of

Cri min al App eals he ld tha t a def end antcould no t be p ro s e c u t ed for felon y murd er w here the assa ultive act re sul ti ng i n the homi ci de i s reli ed upon as the felony w hic h boosts the homic ide i nto t he murde r cat eg or

y . See i d. at 54 5- 46. Beca use the fel ony murder r ule al lows t he unde rl y ing felony offense to s uppl y

the nece ss ar

y culpab le mental state, the cour t reas oned t hat t he statu tory restriction w hich proh ibits ma nslau ghter f rom b eing the un derlyi ng fe lony w ould be c ircumv ented if a f e lo n y murder co uld be p re dic ated on th e under ly ing ag g ra v ated ass aul t. See id. In effect , t he C our t hel d tha t t o al low

an a ss aul t to be used as the fel ony that ma k e s a n o ffe n s e a fe l o n y m u rd e r , i s t o c re a t e a n o ffe n s e n o ta u t h o r i z e d b y t he Leg is lat ure bec ause the L eg is lat ure had spec ific all y prov ide d tha t reck les sl y ca usi ng the death of an indi v idu al ( mansl aug hter ) coul d not be used as a basis for mak ing a ho mic ide a murder

pursuantto § 19. 02( b) (3 ) of the Tex as Penal C ode. See i d. Bec ause the8

under ly ing felony

as saul t s uppl ies the neces sar y cu lpa ble mental stat e for the a ct of murde r, the Cou rtof Cr imi nal Appea ls bel iev ed th at t he appl ic ati o n of the felony

murder ru le to t hose facts w as an “att empt to spli t into unrela ted p arts an i ndi v is ibl e transacti on.” Id. at 54 6. This reaso n in g, h o wever, d oes not a ppl y i n the co ntext of a c api tal murder pred icated upo n the comm ission of a burglary

b ecau se the S tate is not creating an of fense not a uthor iz ed or

co ntempl ated by

the Leg is lat ure . Furt her more, unl ik e Gar re tt , i n the capita l murde r sche m e , t h e i n ten t to cau se the dea th of the ind iv idua l is w holly inde pen den t of

the inte nt to comm it the aggrav ating of fense . Th e mu rder and burglary are cl ear ly di v is ibl e transacti ons, each w it h it s o w n req uis it e mens rea. W hil e the mens re a of the tw o of

fense s ma y overlap, this capita l mu rder schem e doe s not require a transferen ce of inte nt fro m the burg lar y of fense to the murder . Therefore , w e find the merg er of int ent d o c t r i n e o f Gar

re tt to be ina pplicab le to the prosecu tion o f c a p it a l m urde r unde r § 19. 03(a )(2). Ass uming that the leg al suffici ency of the e v ide nce w as at i ss ue, for pur poses of appel lat e rev iew , this Cour t must gi v e deference to “ the respon si bil ity of the factfinder

to fairly resolv e con f licts in testimo ny, to we igh the evidence, and to draw reaso nab le inferen ces f rom basic facts to ultima te facts.” Jacks on v. Vi rgini a, 443 U . S. 307, 318- 19 (1 979)

. See al

so Hooper

v. Sta te, 214 S.W .3d 9 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2007) . W hen as ses si ng the legal suff iciency of

the evidence to supp ort a crimina l convi ction, the ap pellat e cou rt must co n s i d e r

a l l t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h tm o s tfa v o ra b l e t o t h e v e rd i c ta n d d e t e r mi ne w hethe r, based on that ev ide nce and reason abl e i nferenc es to be draw n the re from, a9

ration al juror could ha v e foun d the essen tial elem ent s o f the crime beyond a rea sona ble doubt. Jacks on, 443 U.S. at 318- 19; Hooper , 214 S.W .3d a t 13. Ea ch fact need not poi nt direct ly and ind ependent ly

to the g uil t of

the acc used, so l ong as the cumul ati v e forc e of all the evidence is suff icient to supp ort the conviction. Circum stan tial evi den ce alon e is suffici ent t o es tabl ish th e gu ilt of the ac cus ed, a nd th e s tandard of rev iew as to the suf f iciency of

the ev iden ce is the sam e for bot h direct and circumsta ntial evidence cases. Hooper , 214 S.W .3d a t 13. In a legal suf

f iciency of

the evidence rev iew , the essen tial elem ent s of the of fense are thos e of a hy pothet ic all y cor re ct jur y ch arg e for the o ffense in q uest ion ( i. e. , one that acc uratel y

se ts out t he l aw

and adeq uatel y

des cr ibe s t he offense for w hic h the appel lan t w as tr ied w it hout inc re asi ng the sta te’ s b urden of proof or rest ri cti ng the st ate’ s t heor y of c r i mi n a l re s p o n s i b i l i ty ). Id. at 14. Therefore, i t i s i mport ant t o not e tha t w here the ind ictment and t he tr ial court ’s charg e author iz e the j ur y to conv ict on more than one l eg al theor y , as they

di d i n thi s c ase, the v erdict of g uil t w il l be uphe ld if the ev ide nce is su ff ic ien t on any of the t heor ies pos si ble

. Id. Appl y ing thi s a nal y si s t o the facts of thi s cas e, w e must deter mine w hether a rati onal juror co uld hav e found that Appel lan t int enti onal ly caus ed th e deat h of Vi nce Si mnacher w hile in the course of com mitt ing a burglary of the Sim nach er residen ce. Here, the State ’s theor y of pro se cu ti o n woul d hav e al low ed for a c onv icti on i f the j ur y had found that Appel lan t ent ered th e Si mnacher resi dence w it h the i ntentto (1 ) ca u se b o dil y i nju ry , ( 2)10

threa ten to cause imm inen t bod ily injury , or (3) ma ke of

fensive physical contact wi th Vince Simn ache r, Rhond a Ki t c h e n s, or any other party g uestin atten dan ce. T here fore, in re vie win g t h e su f

f ic ie n c y o f

t h e e vid e n c e we m u s tco n s id e r e a c h p o s s ib il it y. Iti s u ndi sput ed th at A ppel lan t ent ered the Si mnacher resi dence w it hout the effect iv e c onsen t of the ow ner , and thereafter caus ed th e deat h of Vi nce Si mnacher

. W hat Appel lan t di sput es is w hether the ev ide nce is l eg all y

su ff ic ien t t o es tabl is h tha t he ent ered the resi d e n ce w it h the i ntentto (1 ) caus e bodi ly i nju ry , ( 2) threaten to c ause immi nent bodi ly i nju ry , or

( 3) make offensi v e phy si cal co ntac t w it h Vi nce Si mnacher , R honda Ki tch ens, or

any othe r par

ty g uesti n att endanc e. In t hat reg ard, t he ev ide nce shows t hat Appel lan t w as upsetabout his div orce from Rhonda and her i nv olv ement w it h Vi nce, that he w as aw are tha t both Rho nda and Vi nce w ere at the S imnac her resi dence , and thathe w as ang ry

aboutthere bei ng a pa rty to “c ele brate” the a n n iver sa ry of thei r div orce. The testim ony of

T eresa Ra y lene O tt indica tes th at Ap pellan t had previ ously threate ned to kill Vince Simn ache r. She f urthe r testi f ie d t haton the night of the sho oting, she had spoke w ith App ellant by telep hon e an d quote d him as sayi ng, “I ought to com e over there an d kill e very m o th e r f u ck in g on e of y’all .” An o th e r pe rso n pre s e n ta t t h e tim e of th e sh o o ti n g, W illiam W elch, a lso qu o t e d A p p ellantas sayi ng, “Y ou so n (sic) of bitche s didn’t th ink I w oul d do it ,” as he b eg an to sh oot. Ev en i f the St ate w ere req uired to establ is h tha t t he int ended v icti m of the as saul t w as someone other than Vi nce Si mnacher , the ev ide nce w as leg all y su ff ic ien t t o s uppor

t t he j ur y ’s v erdict. Appel lan t’ s t hird i ss ue i s o v er ru led

.11 Conclusion Accordin gly , having overruled App ellant ’s t h re e issues, w e af f irm the trial court’s jud g ment.

Patr ic k A . Pi rt le Justice Publ is h.