In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
___________________ NO. 09-24-00168-CR ___________________
CHRISTOPHER WEISS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _____________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 19th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Cause No. 2018-213-C1 ________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION Christopher Weiss was indicted for capital murder of a child under ten years
old. Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 19.02(b)(1), 19.03(a)(8). A jury convicted Weiss and
the trial court sentenced Weiss to the mandatory sentence of life without parole. 1 See
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 37.071, § 1(a); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.31(a)(2).
1 This case was transferred to this Court from the Tenth Court of Appeals in Waco, Texas, pursuant to a docket equalization order. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 73.001.
1 Weiss appeals the judgment arguing two grounds: (1) the evidence is legally
insufficient; and (2) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of internet searches
for “poisoning.” For the reasons stated below, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Sufficiency of the Evidence
When addressing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider
whether, after viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the
crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319
(1979); see also Villa v. State, 514 S.W.3d 227, 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). This
standard requires the appellate court to defer “to the responsibility of the trier of fact
to fairly resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw
reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at
319. We may not re-weigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the
factfinder. See Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). “The
court conducting a sufficiency review must not engage in a ‘divide and conquer’
strategy but must consider the cumulative force of all the evidence.” Villa, 514
S.W.3d at 232 (citing Murray v. State, 457 S.W.3d 446, 448-49 (Tex. Crim. App.
2015)). Although juries may not speculate about the meaning of facts or evidence,
juries are permitted to draw any reasonable inferences from the facts so long as each
2 inference is supported by the evidence presented at trial. See Cary v. State, 507
S.W.3d 750, 757 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319); see
also Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 16-17 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (Jurors may also
draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. “[A]n inference is a conclusion
reached by considering other facts and deducing a logical consequence from them.”).
Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13,16.
We presume that the factfinder resolved any conflicting inferences from the
evidence in favor of the verdict, and we defer to that resolution. See Merritt v. State,
368 S.W.3d 516, 525 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). We do so because the jurors are the
exclusive judges of the facts, the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight to be
given to the testimony. See Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex. Crim. App.
2010). Direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are equally probative, and
circumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient to uphold a conviction so long as
the cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support
the conviction. See Ramsey v. State, 473 S.W.3d 805, 809 (Tex. Crim. App.
2015); see also Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13.
We measure whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support
a conviction by comparing it to “the elements of the offense as defined by the
hypothetically correct jury charge for the case.” Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240
(Tex. Crim. App. 1997). The hypothetically correct jury charge is one that
3 “accurately sets out the law, is authorized by the indictment, does not unnecessarily
increase the State’s burden of proof or unnecessarily restrict the State’s theories of
liability, and adequately describes the particular offense for which the defendant was
tried.” Id. The “law as authorized by the indictment” includes the statutory elements
of the offense and those elements as modified by the indictment. See Curry v. State,
30 S.W.3d 394, 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); see also Swisher v. State, No. 10-19-
00285-CR, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 10402, at *5 (Tex. App.—Waco Dec. 30, 2020,
pet. ref’d) (mem. op.) (not designated for publication).
Capital Murder of a Child Under Ten
An individual commits capital murder if he intentionally or knowingly
murders an individual under ten years of age. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.03(a)(8). “A
person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct
when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.” Id. §
6.03(b). Knowledge is a fact question for the jury and is almost always proven
through the circumstances surrounding the crime. See Smith v. State, 965 S.W.2d
509, 518 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (discussing “intent,” as inferred from the
circumstances); see also Lee v. State, 442 S.W.3d 569, 580 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
2014, no pet.) (same). A culpable mental state may be inferred from: (1) the acts,
words, and conduct of the accused; (2) the extent of the injuries to the victim; (3) the
method used to produce the injuries; and (4) the relative size and strength of the
4 parties. See Rhymes v. State, 536 S.W.3d 85, 95 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2017, pet.
ref’d). See West v. State, No. 10-15-00326-CR, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 5750, at *4
(Tex. App.—Waco July 25, 2018, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for
publication).
Admission of Evidence about Internet Searches for Poison
An appellate court reviews a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude
evidence under an abuse-of-discretion standard. See Montgomery v. State, 810
S.W.2d 372, 378-79 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990); see also Henley v. State, 493 S.W.3d
77, 82-83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). So long as the trial court’s decision was within
the zone of reasonable disagreement and was correct under any theory of law
applicable to the case, the decision must be upheld because trial courts are usually
in the best position to make the determination as to whether certain evidence should
be admitted or excluded. See Winegarner v. State, 235 S.W.3d 787, 790 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2007); see also Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 391. A trial court judge is given
considerable latitude on evidentiary rulings. See Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 378-
79. That different trial judges might reach different conclusions on similar facts does
not equate to an abuse of discretion. Id. We review the trial court’s ruling in light of
the information before the trial court at the time the ruling was made. See Hoyos v.
State, 982 S.W.2d 419, 422 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).
5 The Evidence
The bodies of “Victoria” and her thirteen-month-old daughter, “Angelique,”
were found at Tradinghouse Lake Park in Waco, on the morning of November 5,
2017.2, 3 Victoria was found on the ground near the driver’s side of her car. She had
been shot four times in the head. Angelique, seated in her car seat in the back seat of
Victoria’s car, had been shot twice in the head.
Testimony of “Kathy”
Kathy testified that she had lived in Waco for seventeen years as of the time
of trial. Kathy’s father lived in the Waco area, off Elk Road toward Tradinghouse
Lake. 4 Kathy recalled that she and her wife visited Kathy’s father on Sundays
“[p]robably every week. On the weekends, we’d ride out there and go see him.”
Kathy and her wife liked to go to Tradinghouse Lake to camp or watch the sunsets.
Kathy described the lake at nighttime, when there was no moon, stating “you can’t
see anything. It’s very dark.”
2 We refer to the victims, their family members, and the civilian witnesses by pseudonyms or familial relationships to conceal their identities. See Tex. Const. art. I, § 30 (granting crime victims “the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy throughout the criminal justice process[.]”). See Smith v. State, No. 09-17-00081-CR, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 1874, at *2 n.1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Mar. 14, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 3 All dates are 2017 unless otherwise specified. 4 Other testimony showed that the lake area was also known as TP & L, for the electric company facility formerly located there.
6 When asked about Sunday, November 5, 2017, Kathy testified that she and
her wife decided to drive to Tradinghouse Lake just before lunchtime. About five
minutes after arriving at the park, they came across a car that was parked so that it
was blocking the roadway. Kathy drove closer, stopped about five feet from the car,
and she and her wife got out of her truck. Kathy saw a woman on the ground “[n]o
further than 10 feet” from the car, and then saw a baby in the back seat of the car.
Kathy’s wife went to check on the woman near the front of the car and Kathy walked
over and opened the back door of the car and saw the baby. Upon looking more
closely, Kathy saw that the baby had been shot in the head. Kathy became frightened
and told her wife “somebody shot this baby.” Kathy and her wife then went back up
the road to her truck and backed the truck up to the top of the hill. Kathy called
9-1-1 and the operator directed police to their location. While Kathy and her wife
were waiting thirty to forty minutes for the police to arrive, they saw only one vehicle
leave the park: a red truck that Kathy believed was a Dodge. After the police arrived
and surveyed the scene, officers took statements from Kathy and her wife and
collected both of the women’s fingerprints and DNA swabs. The police also took
pictures of Kathy’s truck and tires and released the women to leave the scene.
Testimony of Mother
Victoria’s mother testified and stated that Victoria was born shortly after
Mother moved to Waco in 1992. She said that after Angelique was born, Victoria
7 and Angelique lived with Victoria’s cousins, “Aaron,” “Daphne,” and “Reid,” and
Mother and Victoria both worked at a local chicken-processing plant.
Mother recalled that “Sophie,” Victoria’s sister, spent the night at the cousins’
home on November 4 and used Victoria’s cell phone the next morning to text Mother
to pick her up from the cousins’ home.
Mother testified that when the police came to her home and told her that
Victoria and the baby were found dead at the lake, she knew immediately who was
involved because Victoria and “James” (the alias Weiss used) would go to the lake.
Testimony of “Joel”
Joel testified that he was born and raised in Waco and met Victoria when they
both worked at the chicken-processing plant in Waco. He began dating Victoria when
Angelique was about two months old. Joel said he moved in with Victoria and her
cousins at her cousins’ home for a “couple of months” before he moved out. Joel
testified that at the time of the murders, he was living with another woman who
eventually became the mother of his son. He testified that he was with his girlfriend
the night of the murders and learned of them the next day.
Testimony of “Jon”
Jon was a friend of Victoria’s brother, Isaac. Jon’s DNA was found in
Victoria’s car. Jon explained that Isaac used to borrow Victoria’s car and give him
8 rides to and from technical college in the months prior to the murders. Jon was not
surprised that his DNA was found in the car.
Testimony of “Ryan”
Ryan testified that at the time of the murders, he and Victoria worked at
Sanderson Farms, usually on the 4:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. shift. Victoria gave Ryan a
ride to and from work each day when they worked together. He kept his work ID
badge hanging on the rearview mirror in her car. He was not surprised that his DNA
was found in the car.
Testimony of “Claire”
Claire worked with Victoria during the months prior to the murder and visited
outside of work with Victoria. Victoria told her Angelique’s father was James or
Javier Talamantez and showed Claire his photo. Claire was also familiar with the
dating website where Victoria said she met Angelique’s father. Claire participated in
a Waco Facebook group and used the group to try to locate Weiss because Victoria
stated that the dating website was the only way she could contact Weiss. Victoria
managed to get Weiss’ license plate number during one of her meetings with Weiss
and Victoria gave the plate number to Claire. Claire posted the information on social
media and someone responded to her post with Weiss’ name and address. Claire and
Victoria then called April Weiss, Weiss’ wife, telling her that Weiss had a child by
9 Victoria. During that call, a man’s voice came on the line and the call disconnected.
Claire assumed that the man’s voice belonged to Weiss.
Testimony of “Julie”
Julie grew up with Victoria and she described herself as “best friends” with
Victoria. Julie said Victoria was at a mutual friend’s house until about 10:00 p.m. on
November 4 until Victoria stated that she had to go take Angelique to visit her father
so Weiss could spend some time with her. Julie testified she had also formed an
account on the same dating app that Weiss was using as “Talamantez” when Claire
was trying to locate him for Victoria. She said she was able to get Weiss to respond
to her messages even though he was blocking Victoria.
Testimony of “Jordyn”
Jordyn testified that she was friends with Julie, who used to live with her, and
friends with Victoria because she and Julie used to help babysit Angelique. Jordyn
said that on the night of November 4, Victoria came to her house, and they did
Victoria’s makeup because Victoria was “gonna go meet my baby daddy.”
Testimony of “Sophie”
Sophie, one of Victoria’s younger sisters, was fifteen years old when she
testified. Sophie said she was nine years old on the day of the murders. Sophie
confirmed that she, Anna, Victoria, and Angelique spent Saturday evening at
Jordyn’s house before dropping Anna at her mother’s house and arriving at Victoria’s
10 house. When riding in Victoria’s car, Sophie always sat in the back seat behind the
driver and Angelique always sat in her car seat in the middle of the back seat. Sophie
said a “white guy” was at Victoria’s home standing next to a white pickup truck
when they arrived. She continued that Victoria took the baby and the “white guy”
into her bedroom for a while and then Victoria and the “white guy” left. Before
leaving, Victoria gave her phone to Sophie and told Sophie that she and the “white
guy” were going to the lake. The “white guy” left in his truck and Victoria followed
him in her own car, with Angelique in the baby seat.
Testimony of “Reid”
Reid was Victoria’s cousin and he was twenty-one years old when the murders
happened. He and his younger brother, Aaron, lived in the home with Victoria and
Angelique in November 2017. Reid testified that Weiss came to the house around
4:00 or 5:00 p.m. that Saturday looking for Victoria. After Reid told Weiss that
Victoria was at their grandmother’s house, Weiss left. Weiss later returned to Reid’s
house around midnight at the same time Victoria arrived. Sophie, Victoria,
Angelique, and Weiss entered the house at the same time.
Reid believed Victoria and Weiss were arguing after they went into the
bedroom, so he, Reid, went to Victoria’s room to ask whether everything was all
right. Victoria responded “yeah.” Victoria said something about going to the park
and asked Reid whether he wanted to go. Reid said he told her “no, ’cause it’s already
11 late” and went to his bedroom. After about half an hour, Weiss and Victoria went
outside to the vehicles. Reid said Victoria and Weiss started fighting again. Reid said
he heard Victoria crying and Weiss swearing at her. Weiss was telling Victoria “we
need to hurry and f[…] go and stuff like that.” Victoria complained about needing to
put Angelique in the car seat in case there was an accident. Victoria asked Weiss,
“You really want the baby to go flying and die?” Reid heard Weiss respond “I don’t
give a f[…]. Just hurry up and go.” Reid also said he heard Victoria say “[l]eave the
baby alone…don’t hit her like that.” Reid went outside to see about the arguing and
Victoria and Weiss stopped and acted as though nothing was wrong.
Reid also testified that he had heard Victoria and Weiss argue in the past when
Weiss would tell Victoria that he did not want to be with her. Yet, at other times it
appeared that Weiss wanted to leave his wife and be with Victoria. According to
Reid, Weiss and Victoria would argue for up to three hours and Weiss would accuse
Victoria of cheating on him with other men. Reid had heard Weiss call Victoria a
wh[…] during one of their arguments in the weeks leading up to the murders. Reid
said he saw Victoria leave in her car, with Angelique in her car seat, that night
following Weiss in his truck. That was the last time Reid saw Victoria alive.
Testimony of “Aaron”
Aaron is Reid’s younger brother. When Aaron was about nineteen years old,
he lived in the home with their cousin, Victoria. Aaron said Victoria moved in with
12 them when Angelique was about two months old. He said Weiss would come to visit
Victoria and Angelique about every other weekend. When Weiss visited Victoria and
Angelique they would usually “chill” at the house.
Testimony of “Julian”
Julian testified that he took his wife and son fishing at the lake around 10:00
p.m. on the night of November 4, 2017. After he heard about the murders, he called
the police to report what he had seen that night. While Julian and his family were at
the lake, he saw what were later identified as Weiss’ and Victoria’s vehicles pass by
them and go about one-half a mile down the road to a very dark place on the lake.
After that, Julian did not see or hear anything from that direction before he and his
family left to go home around 3:00 a.m. 5
Testimony of “Jason”
Jason, who is a cousin of Weiss, was called as a defense witness. Jason
testified that Weiss, his wife, and their two children moved into a bedroom in Jason’s
home on November 1, 2017, because Weiss was losing his own house. Jason testified
that Weiss was having financial problems. Weiss had shown Jason a .22 caliber pistol
when the two of them were in the bedroom and Jason offered to buy it from him.
Weiss declined to sell the gun and later told Jason that it went missing from his truck.
5 Since daylight saving time ended at 2:00 on the morning of November 5, 2017, Julian and his family technically left the lake at 2:00 a.m. Central Standard Time.
13 Testimony of Deputy Matthew Glover
Deputy Glover testified that he has worked for the McLennan County
Sheriff’s Department since 2013. On November 5, 2017, the Sunday that the bodies
were discovered, Glover was dispatched to the scene at the lake. During the
investigation, crime scene technicians photographed the bodies, the vehicle, and the
scene. As the investigation continued, Glover lent his county-issued digital camera
to the helicopter team and that team took aerial photos of the scene that day. Glover
identified these photographs. Glover testified that there was only “one way in and
one way out” of the park for “regular” vehicles, as distinguished from ATVs or dirt
bikes. Glover also testified that as part of his job, he has made numerous visits to
next-of-kin in order to provide notice of death. He testified that people react
differently to death notifications, stating “[s]ome [] don’t show any kind of emotion.
Some get hysterical and start breaking down and crying.”
Testimony of Forensic Pathologist, Dr. Jill Urban
Jill Urban, M.D., testified that in 2017, she worked as a forensic pathologist
for the Dallas County Medical Examiner’s Office.6 Dr. Urban supervised Victoria’s
autopsy and attended Angelique’s autopsy and concluded that each of deaths was
caused by gunshot wounds to the head at close range, “[r]oughly, a foot” away. Dr.
Dr. Urban testified that the Dallas County Medical Examiner’s Office is also 6
known as the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences.
14 Urban further concluded that the manner of Victoria’s and Angelique’s deaths was
homicide.
Testimony of Texas Ranger Jake Burson
Ranger Jake Burson (“Burson”) testified that he had worked as a Texas Ranger
for fourteen years at the time of trial. Shortly after Victoria’s and Angelique’s bodies
were discovered, Burson was called to the crime scene to assist the McLennan
County Sheriff’s Department. At the scene, Burson collected evidence, including
fingerprints from the car, a projectile found in the back seat of the car, and DNA
samples from the outside car door handles and blankets. Burson later interviewed
Weiss and other witnesses. Burson also said he retrieved partially smoked cigarettes
and butts found on the ground near Victoria’s body, close to the car.
After speaking to some of Victoria’s family members, Burson learned that
Weiss had visited Victoria the night of November 4. Burson testified that he spoke
to Weiss, who was requested to come to the Sheriff’s Office on the day the bodies
were discovered, November 5. Burson said Weiss came to the office with his wife
and two children and Burson and Weiss had a private conversation, away from
Weiss’ family members. That interview lasted about four hours and was videotaped.
When the interview ended, Weiss and his family left.
According to Burson’s recollection of that initial interview, Weiss admitted to
having an affair with Victoria about a year earlier and further acknowledged that
15 Victoria had a child, but Weiss was not sure he was the child’s father. Burson said
Weiss told him that the birth of the child had brought a lot of adversity into his life,
that he was having financial problems because he lost his job, and it caused a lot of
problems between his wife and himself. Burson said Weiss denied that he had ever
touched or been inside Victoria’s vehicle and also denied that his DNA would be in
the vehicle. When Burson asked Weiss when he last saw Victoria, Weiss indicated
something to the effect that it was “the other night.” Burson said he specifically
directed Weiss to the previous night, November 4, and Weiss admitted he had seen
Victoria at her house at that time. Burson said Weiss told him he waited for Victoria
for some time and she finally arrived home when he was there waiting for her at
about 10:00 p.m. on November 4. Burson said he finally told Weiss that the reason
he asked him to come in for questioning was because Victoria and Angelique were
dead for which “there wasn’t much of a reaction.” He said Weiss told him he thought
something like that had happened--possibly to one of his family members. Weiss
was requested, and agreed, to give a DNA sample and, when asked about his cell
phone, volunteered to turn his cell phone over for a cell phone extraction and data
analysis.
Upon further questioning, Weiss said he owned several guns and had recently
lost, or had stolen, a .22 caliber pistol that he had bought for his wife. Burson later
visited Rodeo Pawn Shop, in Waco, and obtained records showing that Weiss had
16 purchased a .22 caliber Blue Steel revolver on January 10, 2015. Burson testified,
through presentation of the recorded interview, that Weiss said the day his wife found
out about Angelique was “the day my life fell apart.” Burson said he took a buccal
swab to get a DNA sample from Weiss. Burson said that early in his interview with
Weiss, Weiss denied that he had gone to Tradinghouse Lake with Victoria on the
night of November 4. Burson also noted that the clothing Weiss wore to the interview
was different from the clothing Weiss had worn the night of November 4 when Weiss
was videotaped at Walmart. Burson later testified that he had Weiss draw a picture
in his second interview, after Miranda rights were given, of where Weiss’ truck was
parked and where Victoria’s car was parked when Weiss and Victoria were at the
lake. Burson testified that Weiss’ drawing closely matched the locations where
Victoria’s vehicle was found parked when the murders were discovered.
When asked to compare differences between the first and second recorded
interviews he made with Weiss, Burson noted the following differences:
In the first interview, Weiss stated that he left Victoria’s house, went home,
tried to make a surprise visit back to Victoria’s but could not find her, and never went
to the lake. In the second interview, Weiss stated Victoria followed him to the lake
and after he and Victoria spent time there, Weiss left Victoria at the lake and drove
around for a while before going home.
17 In the first interview, Weiss said he stopped for a while at the Brazos River
before he went home that night. In the second interview, however, Weiss said he
went to Lake Belton for about forty minutes after he left Tradinghouse Lake. Weiss’
cell phone records confirmed that he was near Lake Belton at the time in question.
Testimony of Captain Chris Eubank
Chris Eubank (Eubank”) testified that in November 2017, he was a patrol
captain with the McLennan County Sheriff’s Office.
Although Eubank was called to the crime scene on November 5, his
involvement with the investigation was “very minimal” that day, and he did not pick
up any evidence. On November 7, the chief deputy, David Kilcrease, requested
Eubank to accompany him to Temple to “sit on a house” while other officers
obtained an arrest warrant for Weiss. Eubank and Kilcrease therefore took a county
vehicle to Temple, and parked “150, 200 yards at least from the house” where Weiss
was staying at that time. From that vantage point, Eubank and Kilcrease saw a man
they believed to be Weiss put things in the back of his pickup truck and leave the
house. Eubank and Kilcrease followed Weiss. According to Eubank, Weiss initially
drove “normal,” but when Weiss realized that the officers were following him, “he
was picking up speed. And you could see that he was weaving in and out of traffic.
. . . Obviously, he knew that we were there. And that he was, you know, trying to get
away from us.”
18 When Eubank and Kilcrease saw Weiss enter a parking lot at the Temple
municipal buildings, they pulled behind Weiss’ truck as other officers arrived and
took Weiss into custody.
Testimony of Joyce Marek
Joyce Marek was working as a crime scene technician for the Waco Police
Department at the time of the murders. In November 2017, Marek processed
Victoria’s turquoise Ford Focus for fingerprints and DNA evidence after the vehicle
was taken to the crime lab. An expended bullet projectile was found in the back seat
of Victoria’s vehicle at the scene.
Marek also assisted in searching Weiss’ truck at the crime lab. In that vehicle,
Marek found an unloaded .45 caliber pistol in the driver’s door pocket and a safe in
the back of the pickup. Marek found the children’s birth certificates and various
clothing, among other things. Marek also located a .308 caliber rifle, ammunition, a
long-range scope, and a bow and arrow.
Testimony of Serena Zboril
In November 2017, Serena Zboril was working as a forensic scientist in the
DNA section of the Texas Department of Public Safety Crime Lab in Waco. Zboril
explained the DNA testing results established that Weiss was a possible contributor
to DNA found on Victoria’s car keys and Victoria’s black pants. Zboril also said
Weiss could not be excluded as a contributor to DNA found on the back left interior
19 door handles and buttons of Victoria’s car (because it had limited support for
exclusion).
Testimony of Courtney Ferreira
Courtney Ferreira (“Ferreira”) testified that she was a DNA analyst in the
Forensic Biology Unit at the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences. After
explaining how DNA testing can identify a child’s father, Ferreira testified that she
obtained DNA from Weiss, from Victoria, and from Angelique to determine
Angelique’s paternity. “Christopher Weiss was included as being the biological
father of [Angelique].” In fact, according to Ferreira, “[i]t’s 138 billion times more
likely that Christopher Weiss contributed and is the father than if a randomly selected
individual is the father.”
Testimony of Dustin Losak
Dustin Losak (“Losak”) was working as an investigator with the McLennan
County Sheriff’s Office in November 2017. Investigator Losak obtained and
reviewed Weiss’ Facebook posts. In October 2017, Weiss posted that he loved his
wife, but at the same time, Weiss was messaging Victoria about his future
relationship with Angelique. Losak also explained, through video from a Walmart
about ten minutes from Victoria’s house, that Weiss was attempting to go to
Victoria’s house on Saturday, November 4, 2017, and attempting to meet Victoria
that day. Losak pointed out records of Facebook messages between 7:00 p.m. and
20 10:00 p.m. on November 4, 2017, in which Weiss was attempting to arrange a
meeting with Victoria.
Losak then went through Weiss’ deleted cell phone entries and explained what
was recovered regarding internet searches for methods of poisoning people. Losak
said the records showed searches for “boil potatoes in rubbing alcohol,” “solanine
poison” and “solayene poison,” “how to make rotten meat poison,” “Bow (sic) to
make fatal poison,” “how to make deadly poisons at home,” “how to extract cyanide
from apricot seeds,” and “how many peach seeds can kill you.” Those searches had
all been made just after 11:00 p.m. on October 26, 2017—nine days before the
evening of the murders but were later deleted. Losak also pointed out deleted
searches seeking an address for Victoria’s friend, Claire, who had been trying to
contact Weiss on Victoria’s behalf.
Losak then identified cell tower data that had been deleted at approximately
3:00 a.m. on November 5, 2017, the early morning hours near the time of the
murders. Losak also testified about a test-drive he made from Victoria’s house to the
location on the lake where the bodies were found. Losak recalled that the trip took
him just over twenty-nine minutes.
Finally, Losak testified to security video from a car dealership near the lake.
This recording showed Weiss’ and Victoria’s vehicles heading toward the lake at
12:50 a.m. on November 5, 2017, and then showed only Weiss’ truck traveling in the
21 opposite direction, away from the lake, at 1:27 a.m. on the same date. Losak was
able to infer from the location data that Weiss’ phone was by the lake at 12:56 a.m.
on November 5, 2017, near the time of the murders.
Testimony of Jeffrey Kelly
Jeffrey Kelly (“Kelly”) worked as a firearms and toolmark examiner for the
Texas Department of Public Safety Crime Lab. Kelly testified the .22 caliber gun
Weiss purchased in 2015 at Rodeo Pawn, as shown by the purchase receipt, was
capable of firing .22 long caliber shells. The way that gun fired required the shooter
to empty the chambers of the spent casings after firing so that he could empty the
casings into his hands and leave no spent casings at the scene.
ANALYSIS
Sufficiency of the Evidence of Capital Murder of a Child Under Ten
In his first issue, Weiss challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support
his conviction for capital murder of a child under ten. An individual commits capital
murder if he intentionally or knowingly murders an individual under ten years of
age. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.03(a)(8). “A person acts knowingly, or with
knowledge . . . of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain
to cause the result.” Id. § 6.03(b). Weiss does not deny that Victoria and Angelique
were murdered by being shot in the head. Weiss argues that the evidence is
insufficient to identify him as the murderer because the circumstantial evidence is
22 not sufficient as a matter of law. For us to determine this issue, this Court must
consider the cumulative force of all the evidence. See Villa, 514 S.W.3d at 232. “In
all prosecutions for murder, the state or the defendant shall be permitted to offer
testimony as to all relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the killing and the
previous relationship existing between the accused and the deceased, together with
all relevant facts and circumstances going to show the condition of the mind of the
accused at the time of the offense.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.36(a).
Weiss contends that the evidence is insufficient in five areas: (1) motive,
including marital/relationship difficulties, (2) opportunity, (3) the prior behaviors of
a defendant, (4) inconsistencies in the defendant’s story, and (5) a catch-all of other
circumstantial evidence.
A review of the evidence shows the jury heard evidence about the relationship
Weiss had with Victoria and Angelique. Victoria’s cousin, Reid, testified that he had
heard Victoria and Weiss argue in the bedroom and again in the driveway on the
night of the murders. Reid said that in the past, Weiss would tell Victoria that he did
not want to be with her, that they would argue for up to three hours sometimes, and
Weiss would accuse Victoria of cheating on him with other men. Reid had heard
Weiss call Victoria a wh[…] during one of their arguments in the weeks leading up
to the murders. Weiss himself told Ranger Burson that the day his wife found out
about Angelique was “the day my life fell apart.” Weiss also told Ranger Burson that
23 on the night of the November 4 meeting between himself and Victoria, he told
Victoria “I don’t want my wife to know I’m still messing—doing stuff.” Weiss was
afraid that his relationship with Victoria was going to cause his wife to leave him.
The State, though not required to show motive, 7 established a motive for Weiss to
want to murder Victoria and Angelique and that is one kind of evidence to aid the
jury in establishing proof of the offense. See Crane v. State 786 S.W.2d 338, 349-50
(Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (citing Porter v. State, 623 S.W.2d 374, 386 (Tex. Crim. App.
1981) (admission of evidence that the defendant shot the victim to avoid being
apprehended for an armed robbery that the defendant committed eleven days
earlier)).
That is not the only evidence of Weiss’ motive. Weiss’ cousin, Jason, said
Weiss and Weiss’ family moved into a bedroom in Jason’s home on November 1,
2017, because Weiss was losing his own house and was having financial problems.
According to Facebook messages Weiss exchanged with Victoria, Weiss was
concerned that Victoria would seek child support from him if she pursued a paternity
claim against him at a point in time when Weiss did not even have enough money
for gas. See Sanders v. State, No. 01-07-00775-CR, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 2561, at
*24-26 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 2, 2009, pet. ref’d) (Evidence that the
Motive is not an element of the crime of murder. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 7
19.02(b)(1); see Ingerson v. State, 559 S.W.3d 501, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018).
24 defendant did not want his girlfriend to discover that he had impregnated another
woman and did not want to pay child support were evidence of his motive to commit
murder.). There was evidence of Weiss’ motive to murder Victoria and Angelique
upon which the jury could have based its verdict. Id.
There is also evidence that Weiss had opportunity to commit the murders that
night. Here, the evidence at trial showed that Appellant’s DNA was found inside
Victoria’s vehicle at the scene of the murders and on her clothing. In addition, cell
phone records reveal that Weiss and Victoria were in contact on the day she died.
Cell phone records place Appellant in close proximity to Victoria and Angelique at
the time of their deaths, although the records cannot pinpoint Weiss’ exact location
at the time of the murders. The cell phone records show that Weiss and Victoria were
conversing in the hours before the murders. Reid and other family members testified
that Weiss met Victoria at the house the night of November 4, went into her room
with her, and then both left after saying they were going to the lake where the bodies
were later found.
Reid saw Weiss leave with Victoria and Angelique following him in Victoria’s
car. Weiss was the last person seen with Victoria and Angelique when they were
alive. Reid testified about the prior behavior of Weiss when Weiss and Victoria
would argue about whether Weiss wanted to be with Victoria or stay with his wife.
Reid said that on the night of the murders, Weiss sounded angry to the point that
25 Reid went outside to see whether Weiss and Victoria were fighting. But Weiss and
Victoria quickly quieted down and acted as though they were not angry. The
behaviors Reid described provided the jury with evidence that Weiss’ anger at
Victoria may have motivated Weiss to commit the murders.
Since Weiss was charged with and convicted of murdering Angelique, rather
than Victoria, we further observe that Weiss’ behavior toward Angelique was not that
of a protective father. Specifically, Weiss referred to Angelique as “the child” or “it”
when speaking with Burson. Weiss also was overheard stating that he did not care if
Angelique were killed in a car accident. Since Reid heard Victoria tell Weiss not to
hit Angelique, the jury reasonably could have inferred that Weiss was striking his
child in a way that showed he did not care about her.
Weiss is the undisputed father of Angelique based upon the DNA evidence
admitted without objection at trial. There was evidence that Weiss admitted that he
did not want his wife and his family to find out that he had a sexual relationship and
a child with Victoria. There was evidence Weiss was concerned about having to pay
child support payments for Angelique. Finally, the jury heard evidence that Weiss
lied to police and gave different versions of his actions on the night of the murders.
See Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45, 50 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Attempts to
conceal incriminating evidence, inconsistent statements, and implausible
explanations to the police are probative of wrongful conduct and are also
26 circumstances of guilt.) (internal citation omitted). Weiss offered no alibi witnesses
to corroborate his account of his whereabouts and movements on the night of the
murders. In fact, near the time of the murders, Weiss’ and Victoria’s vehicles were
recorded going in the direction of the lake and later, only Weiss’ vehicle was
recorded leaving from the direction of the lake. Although Weiss attempted to explain
this evidence by claiming that he left Victoria and Angelique alive at the lake, the
jury need not have credited this statement. Instead, the jury could have accepted the
State’s theory of the case: Victoria’s car did not leave the lake area with Weiss
because Victoria and Angelique were already dead.
The jury heard evidence of Weiss’ erratic driving when he left the house he
shared with his cousin, and could have interpreted this evidence, as Eubank did, as
showing Weiss’ attempt to avoid arrest. Since “[e]vidence of flight . . . shows a
consciousness of guilt of the crime for which the defendant is on trial[]” the jury
could have construed this evidence meaning Weiss was guilty. Bigby v. State, 892
S.W.2d 864, 884 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (citations omitted).
In a similar case, the Court of Criminal Appeals considered a murder
conviction based on circumstantial evidence. See Ingerson v. State, 559 S.W.3d 501,
509 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). In Ingerson, as here, the murder weapon was never
found. When Ingerson told police he “sold [a particular gun] to a ‘Mexican’ he met
on a South Padre Island Beach[,]” the jury did not have to accept that explanation at
27 face value. Id. at 510. Weiss’ jury likewise did not have to believe that Weiss’ missing
gun disappeared from his truck and may have been stolen at Walmart, as Weiss
claimed. The Ingerson court considered Ingerson’s motive to kill his victims, his
“avoidance of the police,” his statement to an acquaintance, his opportunity to
commit the murders, and his conduct afterward, and concluded that the
circumstantial evidence, when “viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict,”
was sufficient to support the verdict. Id. at 511.
Similarly, here the evidence showed Weiss had previously purchased a .22
caliber pistol which an expert testified was capable of firing the kind of shots that
killed Victoria and Angelique. Weiss’ cousin confirmed that he had seen Weiss with
the .22 caliber pistol some time prior to the murders and he had offered to buy it
from Weiss. While it is true that there were no eyewitnesses to the crime, no murder
weapon was recovered, and there was DNA from other persons who had spent time
in Victoria’s car, considering all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the
verdict, we conclude that a rational jury could have found Weiss guilty of the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See Winfrey v. State, 323
S.W.3d 875, 878–79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319).
“[T]his was not a determination so outrageous that no rational trier of fact could
agree.” See Wirth v. State, 361 S.W.3d 694, 698 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). We overrule
Weiss’ first issue.
28 Admission of Internet Searches for Poison
In his second issue, Weiss argues that the trial court reversibly erred by
admitting evidence that Weiss had made internet searches about how to make poison,
searches which were deleted in the days prior to the murders. Investigator Losak
testified that a search of Weiss’ phone records showed searches for “boil potatoes in
rubbing alcohol,” “solanine poison” and “solayene poison,” “how to make rotten
meat poison,” “Bow (sic) to make fatal poison,” “how to make deadly poisons at
home,” “how to extract cyanide from apricot seeds,” and “how many peach seeds
can kill you.” Weiss made timely objections that the evidence was not relevant and
was more prejudicial than probative.8 Rule 401 states that relevant evidence is any
evidence that tends to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the
evidence and is consequential in determining the action. Tex. R. Evid. 401. If the
evidence provides even a small nudge toward proving or disproving a fact of
consequence, it is relevant. See Gonzalez v. State, 544 S.W.3d 363, 370 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2018). However, relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
misleading the jury, causing undue delay or it is needlessly cumulative. Tex. R. Evid.
8 Weiss’ counsel objected on the ground that this evidence was not relevant and that any relevance this evidence might have is “substantially outweighed by the prejudicial effect of such evidence.” The trial court overruled the objection, citing article 38.36, subpart a. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.36(a).
29 403. To violate Rule 403, it is not enough that the evidence is “prejudicial”—it must
be unfairly prejudicial. Vasquez v. State, 67 S.W.3d 229, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).
The searches were made on October 26, 2017—nine days before the evening
of the murders. The searches were subsequently deleted. Losak also pointed out
other deleted searches Weiss made when he was searching for an address for
Victoria’s friend, Claire, one of the people who called Weiss’ wife on the phone. The
trial court ruled that the evidence of the searches and deletions was admissible under
article 38.36(a) which provides “in all prosecutions for murder, the state or the
defendant shall be permitted to offer testimony as to all relevant facts and
circumstances surrounding the killing and the previous relationship existing between
the accused and the deceased, together with all relevant facts and circumstances
going to show the condition of the mind of the accused at the time of the offense.”
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.36(a).
While Weiss is factually correct that Victoria and Angelique were shot, not
poisoned, the trial court could have reasonably concluded that the evidence of his
searches regarding poison was relevant to show the “condition of the mind” of Weiss
shortly before the murders were committed, which is expressly permitted by article
38.36(a). Id. The evidence tends to establish Weiss’ state of mind that he wanted to
kill someone—albeit by poisoning rather than by shooting with a gun. We cannot
30 say the trial court abused its discretion in overruling the objections. Id.; see
Winegarner, 235 S.W.3d at 790; Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 291.
Weiss further objected that the evidence was so prejudicial to his case that the
admission of the poison searches substantially outweighed its probative value. We
must consider whether the evidence of the poison searches had a tendency to suggest
that the jury decide the case on an improper basis, such as an emotional one. See
Rogers v. State, 991 S.W.2d 263, 266 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). While all relevant
evidence may be prejudicial to one side or the other, the question is whether there is
a “clear disparity” between the degree of prejudice compared to its probative value.
See Joiner v. State, 825 S.W.2d 701, 708 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). We analyze a Rule
403 objection by balancing the inherent probative force of the evidence, along with
the proponent’s need for the evidence, against the tendency to suggest a decision on
an improper basis, to confuse or distract the jury, to cause the jury to give undue
weight to the evidence, or to be repetitive or inordinately time consuming. Tex. R.
Evid. 403; see Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637, 641-42 (Tex. Crim. App.
2006).
In response to the prejudice objection, the prosecution contends it had great
need for the evidence because Weiss had told Ranger Burson during his interview
that he had “no friction” with Victoria, that he and Victoria never argued or had
disagreements, and that he had no motive to kill Victoria or Angelique. While Reid
31 testified that he heard arguments between Weiss and Victoria on more than one
occasion, including the night they left the house to go to the lake, Weiss contended
that there was no evidence that these arguments rose to the level of wanting to
commit murder. The evidence of Weiss’ internet searches about how to make poison
show Weiss’ state of mind and that his relationship with Victoria was getting to the
point that he was actively considering ways to kill her. The fact that the searches
were deleted before Weiss relinquished his phone to the police for analysis was also
probative because evidence that an actor hid or attempted to hide evidence is
admissible to infer scienter (guilty knowledge). See Guevara, 152 S.W.3d at 50. The
State demonstrated this evidence was necessary to show the relationship between
Weiss and Victoria was not friendly and without friction as Weiss had described it to
Ranger Burson. The admission of the evidence was neither confusing, nor did it
suggest that the jury should decide the case on an improper basis. The presentation
of the challenged evidence was relatively brief, was not cumulative or repetitive, and
its admission was within the sound discretion of the trial court. See Henley v. State,
493 S.W.3d at 82-83. We conclude the trial court did not err by admitting the
evidence. Because the evidence was properly admitted, we need not conduct a harm
analysis. Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b), 47.1. We overrule Weiss’ second issue.
32 CONCLUSION
Having overruled both of Appellant’s issues, we affirm the judgment of the
trial court.
AFFIRMED.
JAY WRIGHT Justice
Submitted on September 11, 2025 Opinion Delivered October 8, 2025 Do Not Publish
Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.