Court Opinion

ID: 9862816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 02:13:00.144016+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:35:11.448752
License: Public Domain

BERCHELMANN, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent. I believe the evidence sufficiently supports the jury’s verdict of guilt.
The standard of review for sufficiency claims is whether, viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Butler v. State, 769 S.W.2d 234 (Tex.Cr.App.1989). This identical standard applies to sufficiency challenges involving circumstantial evidence cases. Id.
In the case at bar, appellant had the motive; indeed, the express intention, to kill the victim. Appellant acquired horse shoe magnets and dynamite — key ingredients to the bomb — shortly before the victim met his death. Appellant indicated something “spectacular” that would make the newspapers was going to happen. Appellant’s dubious claim that the dynamite was stolen from his truck, along with appellant’s bizarre series of phone calls to Robbie Smart and Carrie Scholl, also implicate *171appellant. Furthermore, given that the jury received a “parties charge” in this case, I would find the evidence sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis other than appellant’s guilt. Willis v. State, 785 S.W.2d 378 (Tex.Cr.App.1989).
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.