Page 103 - Texas police Association Peace Officer Guide 2017

resolution of conflicting inferences, Balderas’s allegations that Wendy’s testimony was false and
not credible play no part in our review of the sufficiency of the evidence.

In this case, Balderas was tried under an indictment that alleged, in relevant part, that he, on or
about December 6, 2005, “while in the course of committing or attempting to commit the
burglary of a habitation owned by Durjan ‘Rata’ Decorado and Wendy Bardales, intentionally
cause[d] the death of Eduardo Hernandez by shooting Eduardo Hernandez with a deadly weapon,
namely a firearm.” A person commits murder when he “intentionally or knowingly causes the
death of an individual.” A person commits burglary if, without the effective consent of the
owner, he enters a building not then open to the public or a habitation 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 burglary 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 committed 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 description of the gunman’s clothing.

(Ed. comment for investigators: Note the Court goes on to discuss evidence which
corroborates the eyewitness.)

Further, Diaz testified that while the ambulance 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 magazine 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 evidence that Balderas, in the course of committing 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 overruled.

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.

A Peace Officer’s Guide to Texas Law 98 2017 Edition