Opinion ID: 2570459
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of evidence for first-degree murder

Text: Saiz argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for the first-degree murder of Antonio. The standard of review on this issue is the same as described above in issue II. The jury unanimously found Saiz guilty of first-degree murder on both the theory of premeditated murder and felony murder. Saiz argues that he should not have been convicted of first-degree murder, as his only intent was to go to Planeview to shoot at a house and that at no time was there any discussion about shooting people. There was sufficient evidence to support the premeditated first-degree murder charge as testimony was elicited at trial in which Saiz went to the Galvan house with the intent to shoot someone. Saiz saw Galvan and Delorea by the car, aimed the shotgun at them, and fired several times. The third shot was not the result of a ricochet or a deflection and hit Antonio in the head, resulting in his death. A defendant is responsible for all of the usual consequences of his or her criminal actions. There was also sufficient evidence to support the felony first-degree murder charge. Saiz admitted he intended to shoot at the Galvan house. Criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied building, which is an inherently dangerous felony, is a felony which can support the felony-murder charge. The attempted murders of both Galvan and Delorea also sufficiently support the felony-murder charge. The evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, could convince a rational factfinder to find Saiz guilty of either premeditated or felony first-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt.