Page 24 - TPA Journal March April 2017

with a deadly weapon, namely a firearm.” A
person commits murder when he “intentional-
ly or knowingly causes the death of an individ-
ual.” A person commits burglary if, without the
effective consent of the owner, he enters a
building not then open to the public or a habi-
tation with intent to commit a felony, theft, or
assault; or he enters a building or habitation
and commits or attempts to commit a felony,
theft, or an assault. An “owner” is a person
who has possession of a property or a greater
right to possession of a property than the actor.
“An unlawful entry into a habitation with the
intent to commit murder will satisfy the bur-
glary element of a capital murder charge.”
Further, “[i]t is both a common-sense inference
and an appellate presumption that a person
intends the natural consequences of his acts, .
. . and that the act of pointing a loaded gun at
someone and shooting it toward that person at
close range demonstrates an intent to kill.”
Viewed in the light most favorable to
the verdict, Wendy’s eyewitness testimony and
other evidence established that Balderas com-
mitted a burglary when he entered Decorado’s
apartment without Decorado’s or Wendy’s
effective consent with the intent to murder
Hernandez, and he committed murder when
he intentionally caused Hernandez’s death by
shooting him with a firearm. Wendy identified
Balderas as the gunman who opened the front
door, entered the apartment, and shot
Hernandez. Karen’s testimony, together with
the medical examiner’s testimony, the autopsy,
and the ballistics evidence, established that the
gunman shot Hernandez in the head and back
at least nine times. Karen’s description of the
gunman’s clothing, and Diaz’s description of
Balderas’s clothing immediately after the
offense, were consistent with Wendy’s descrip-
tion of the gunman’s clothing.
(Ed. comment for investigators: Note the
20 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282
Court goes on to discuss evidence which cor-
roborates the eyewitness.)
Further, Diaz testified that while the ambu-
lance was still at the apartment complex,
Balderas approached him and other LTC gang
members near the complex, stating that he had
“finally got him” as he changed the maga-
zine of his handgun. Ballistics evidence and
Officer Moreno’s testimony confirmed that the
murder weapon was recovered from the box
that Balderas discarded when he ran from the
police ten days after the offense. 16 A rational
jury could have determined from all of this evi-
dence that Balderas, in the course of commit-
ting the offense of burglary, intentionally
caused Hernandez’s death. Thus, the evidence
was sufficient to prove that Balderas was guilty
of capital murder. Point of error one is over-
ruled.
The remainder of the opinion discusses,
at length, the Defendant’s appeal points based
upon a claimed speedy trial violation, the use
of an interpreter, evidentiary issues (including
a challenge to the photo lineup process),
alleged juror outside influence and procedural
matters during trial.
Trial Court Judgment was affirmed.
Balderas v. State, No. AP-77,036, Ct. Crim.
App. Nov. 2nd, 2016
Texas Police Journal