Case Name: Eddie Lee WRIGHT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1979-06-20
Citations: 603 S.W.2d 838
Docket Number: No. 58000
Parties: Eddie Lee WRIGHT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: Before DOUGLAS, TOM G. DAVIS and DALLY, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 603
Pages: 838–841

Head Matter:
Eddie Lee WRIGHT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 58000.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, Panel No. 2.
June 20, 1979.
On Rehearing En Banc Sept. 10, 1980.
Steven P. Amis, David T. Lancaster, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., J. T. Langford and Mike Gillett, Asst. District Attys., Dallas, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before DOUGLAS, TOM G. DAVIS and DALLY, JJ.

Opinion:
OPINION
DOUGLAS, Judge.
Eddie Lee Wright appeals his conviction for murder. Punishment was assessed at eight years. Wright's sole contention is that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.
Kenneth Anderson, a Dallas Police Officer, testified that he was on duty during the evening of October 11, 1975, when he received a call concerning a disturbance. When he arrived at the home of Wright and his wife, Patsy Ruth Arnold, Wright let him in. He observed Arnold's body in the hallway with a bread knife or butcher knife in her left hand. There was blood on a divan in the living room and in the bathroom. There was no trail of blood leading to the body. He had no cuts or blood on him. His clothes were not torn. Wright appeared intoxicated.
Thomas Weir, also a Dallas Police Officer, testified that he arrived at the scene sometime after Anderson. His observations were essentially the same as Anderson's except that he saw blood in the bedroom. Later that night, he took a written statement from Wright. Wright indicated that he and Arnold had been drinking, that Arnold accused him of being unfaithful, that she pulled a knife and stated that she would kill both Wright and herself and that she then stabbed herself. She then went to the bathroom and called him. He found her in the hall.
Raymond Arnold, the brother of the deceased, testified that Arnold and Wright fought frequently. He also stated that Arnold was right handed.
Dr. John Graham, a medical examiner, testified that he conducted an autopsy on Arnold's body, that the cause of death was a stab wound and that Arnold's blood alcohol level was .58 per cent. One with the amount of alcohol in the blood of the deceased would probably be dead drunk and unarousable at the time of her death or, in other words, passed out. He testified that the wound was approximately three and one-half inches deep and could have been made by the knife found in Arnold's hand. The wound could have been self-inflicted.
Wright testified that Arnold had stabbed herself, that he blacked out, that when he awoke he found Arnold lying in the bathroom and that he then summoned help. He denied drinking anything on the night in question. He testified that he had hit her before and that she had been bugging him.
Our review of the evidence must be in the light most favorable to the verdict. In a circumstantial case that evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except the guilt of appellant. Easley v. State, 564 S.W.2d 742 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Suff v. State, 531 S.W.2d 814 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). However, all of the facts of the case need not directly and independently point to the guilt of the appellant; the evidence is sufficient if the cumulative force of all incriminating circumstances warrants a conclusion of guilt. Easley v. State, supra; Stogsdill v. State, 552 S.W.2d 481 (Tex.Cr.App.1977).
In the instant case, the evidence established that Arnold died of a knife stab wound in the chest. The wound was either self-inflicted or inflicted by Wright. The State offered various items of physical evidence tending to show that it was more probable that Wright had inflicted the wound. This evidence includes the lack of a trail of blood leading to the body and the knife being held in Arnold's left hand instead of right. This evidence is simply not persuasive. However, Wright took the stand and testified. The court, sitting as the trier of fact, was able to evaluate his testimony and observe his demeanor. The court was free to reject Wright's testimony completely and conclude that it was a fabrication. Once the court concluded that Wright's testimony was fabricated, the only other explanation for the facts was that Wright had murdered Arnold. The evidence was sufficient.
There is no reversible error. The judgment is affirmed.
Before the court en banc.