Edward Renauldo Armour v. State
Opinion
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-13-00250-CR
Edward Renauldo Armour, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 426TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 70,226, HONORABLE FANCY H. JEZEK, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found appellant Edward Armour guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly
weapon, a second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code § 22.02. The trial court assessed punishment
at 12 years’ imprisonment and a restitution payment of $450. In a single point of error on appeal,
Armour contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We will affirm the
trial court’s judgment.
BACKGROUND
The jury heard evidence of an altercation involving appellant Edward Armour,
Edward’s brother Cory Armour, and complainant James Crathers.1 According to testimony presented
at trial, Edward fired a handgun at James in the course of the altercation. The trial court included
1 To avoid confusion, we will refer to appellant, appellant’s brother, and the complainant by their first names. a self-defense instruction in the jury charge. The jury found Edward guilty, and this appeal followed.
On appeal, Armour contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because
the State did not disprove his claim of self-defense.
DISCUSSION
Standard of review
In reviewing whether the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction, “an appellate
court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any
rational trier of fact could have found each essential element of the offense beyond a reasonable
doubt.” Schneider v. State, 440 S.W.3d 839, 841 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, pet. ref’d) (mem. op.);
see also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2010) (plurality op.). When the defendant raises the issue of self-defense, the State bears
the burden of persuading the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s conduct was not
justified by self-defense. Rodriguez v. State, 212 S.W.3d 819, 821 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, no
pet.). However, the State is not required to produce evidence to refute the self-defense claim; instead:
[T]he State has the burden of persuasion in disproving the evidence of self-defense. That is not a burden of production, i.e., one which requires the State to affirmatively produce evidence refuting the self-defense claim, but rather a burden requiring the State to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. [T]he issue of self-defense is an issue of fact to be determined by the jury. Defensive evidence which is merely consistent with the physical evidence at the scene of the alleged offense will not render the State’s evidence insufficient since the credibility determination of such evidence is solely within the jury’s province and the jury is free to accept or reject the defensive evidence. A jury verdict of guilty is an implicit finding rejecting the defendant’s self-defense theory.
2 Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910, 913–14 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (footnote and citations omitted);
see also Allen v. State, 253 S.W.3d 260, 266 n.24 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“Although the State has
no burden of production of evidence on a defensive issue, once a defense is raised it is the State’s
burden to persuade the jury with respect to that issue . . . .”). Therefore, we must determine “whether
after viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of
fact would have found the essential elements of [the offense] beyond a reasonable doubt and also
would have found against appellant on the self-defense issue beyond a reasonable doubt.” Saxton,
804 S.W.2d at 914.
Analysis
At trial, James testified to the following facts. James was sitting inside a parked car
when another vehicle pulled up beside him. The driver of the other vehicle, later identified as
appellant’s brother Cory Armour, got out and was holding a gun. Another man, later identified as
appellant Edward Armour, then came out of a nearby house and was also holding a gun. Edward and
Cory both stood near James, pointed their guns at him, and threatened him. Unarmed and fearing
for his life, James put his car in reverse and backed up, striking Edward and Cory with his open car
door. Edward was then standing in front of James pointing a gun at him, so James drove forward,
again striking both Edward and Cory. As he drove off, James heard multiple shots being fired, and
his rear window was shattered.
James further testified that when he saw Edward and Cory get into the other vehicle
and drive off, he followed them because he did not want them to get away before the police arrived.
James also called 9-1-1 from his car and provided information about the incident and the location
3 of the vehicles. As James was following the Armour brothers, Edward leaned out of the window
on at least two occasions and shot at James’s car. The police eventually arrived and stopped the
Armour brothers.
Officers and detectives with the Killeen Police Department testified that they
identified and arrested Edward and Cory. According to their testimony, officers discovered two
handguns in the Armours’ vehicle, one of which was a 9mm pistol. The officers also testified that
they recovered 9mm casings at the site where the altercation began. They further testified that
officers discovered bullet holes and a bullet fragment inside James’s car.
Finally, the State presented to the jury a written statement Edward gave to a police
detective a few hours after the altercation. In this statement, Edward declared that he had a handgun
in his waistband when he left the house to confront James. Edward also stated that his brother Cory
fired at James’s vehicle as James drove off. In addition, Edward stated that when James began to
follow them, he took the 9mm handgun from Cory, leaned out the passenger’s window, and fired at
James’s tires.
We conclude that a reasonable jury could have found that the State proved each
element of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon beyond a reasonable doubt and could also have
found beyond a reasonable doubt that Edward’s conduct was not justified self-defense. The jury
could have believed James’s testimony that the Armour brothers were the aggressors and threatened
James, who was unarmed, while exhibiting handguns. The jury could also have believed that
Edward did not act in self-defense when he leaned out of his window and fired multiple times at
James’s car, and the jury could have rejected any evidence to the contrary. See id. (stating that “the
4 jury is free to accept or reject the defensive evidence”). We therefore conclude that the evidence
was sufficient to support Edward’s conviction, and we overrule Edward’s sole point of error.
CONCLUSION
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Edward Renauldo Armour v. State (Edward Renauldo Armour v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.