Home/Court of Appeals of Texas/Elizabeth Ann Hill v. State

Elizabeth Ann Hill v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided June 12, 2008·No. 07-07-00065-CR·Published

Opinion

NO. 07-07-0065-CR


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS


AT AMARILLO


PANEL B


JUNE 12, 2008

______________________________


ELIZABETH HILL,


                                                                                                 Appellant


v.


THE STATE OF TEXAS,


                                                                                                 Appellee

          _________________________________


FROM THE 403RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY;


NO. D-1-DC-05-300771; HON. BRENDA KENNEDY, PRESIDING

_______________________________


Memorandum Opinion

_______________________________

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

          Elizabeth Hill was convicted of murder and sentenced to thirty years in prison. She appeals that conviction in four issues by 1) attacking the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence, 2) challenging the court’s failure to instruct the jury that a negative finding on sudden passion must be unanimous, and 3) attacking the sufficiency of the evidence to prove sudden passion. We affirm.

 

          Issues 1 and 2 - Legal and Factual Sufficiency

          The standards by which we review legal and factual sufficiency are well established. We refer the parties to Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) and Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) for explanation of them.

          The evidence at trial was uncontested that Hill shot and killed her husband Joseph Lucas. She contended she did so, however, in self defense and as a result of an abusive relationship. Hill argues that the evidence was sufficient to establish that defense. When a defendant challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the factfinder’s rejection of self defense in a murder case, we do not look to whether the State presented evidence that refuted the theory of self defense but instead determine whether any rational trier of fact would have found the essential elements of murder beyond a reasonable doubt and would have also found against the defendant on the issue of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Miller v. State, 177 S.W.3d 177, 183 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist. 2005, pet. ref’d). Furthermore, at the time of trial, a person could use deadly force in her own defense to the degree she reasonably believed the force was immediately necessary to protect herself against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force and if a reasonable person in the actor’s situation would not have retreated. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. §9.32(a) (Vernon 2003).

          The record shows that 1) appellant was perceived by persons who knew the couple to have the stronger personality, 2) appellant was very angry over Joseph having disciplined their son in an inappropriate manner and requested that he move out, 3) she gave opposite stories to persons about whether the marriage was over or could be saved after a joint counseling session, 4) during that counseling session, the counselor did not perceive appellant to feel personally threatened by Joseph but found her to be concerned that Joseph not take any of her personal belongings, 5) appellant called Joseph abusive names during the counseling session but Joseph did not reciprocate and took responsibility for his inappropriate behavior with his son, 6) although appellant testified she was afraid of Joseph and asked a neighbor to be at the house when Joseph came to collect his personal belongings, the neighbor never heard any arguments or raised voices while appellant and Joseph were downstairs discussing finances and perceived the couple to be friendly, 7) although appellant testified she was afraid of Joseph, she agreed to accompany him alone upstairs to collect his belongings without asking the neighbor to accompany them, 8) about 20 or 30 seconds after appellant and Joseph went upstairs, appellant began screaming that Joseph should let go of her but the neighbor never heard sounds of a struggle or Joseph say anything, 9) appellant continued to scream for several minutes, but the neighbor never heard any sounds from Joseph until he heard an “ugh,” 10) four shots were fired into Joseph with two of them having a trajectory sharply downward, 11) forensic evidence showed the first two shots were probably in the face and the hand which then penetrated into Joseph’s chest causing him to fall and the last two shots were fired into his shoulder and head, 12) any of the four shots could ultimately have been fatal, 13) there were no obvious signs of a struggle in the couple’s bedroom or closet where Joseph was found, 14) the blood spatter was found no higher than four feet above the ground and blood spatter was consistent with Joseph being no higher than one and one-half to two feet from the floor when he was shot in the head, 15) no blood was found outside of the closet, 16) appellant never saw a weapon on Joseph that night and appellant had never known him to carry or own a weapon, 17) appellant had been a Travis County jailer and had firearm training, 18) appellant had no visible blood, red marks, bruises, or scratches on her after the murder, 19) a fellow prisoner stated that appellant told her she had antagonized Joseph into attacking her and then shot him, 20) the detective questioning appellant believed that her tears were forced since she tended to look at him for his reaction, 21) appellant expressed no remorse to investigating officers over the death of her husband, 22) appellant informed her cell mate that she was “trying to save her house through the insurance on the husband,” and 23) appellant had previously disclosed to an officer that she was not in an abusive relationship with her husband. The foregoing is some evidence upon which a rational jury could conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that appellant murdered her husband and did not act in self-defense.

          Admittedly, there had been an incident that appellant reported to police in 1997 when Joseph had allegedly pushed appellant into the bed causing her to fall to the floor and bruise herself. There was also expert testimony that appellant fell within the pattern of an abused wife in spite of her outwardly stronger personality. Appellant herself explained that she was so afraid of Joseph after she asked him to move out that she slept with a gun under her pillow. During the incident, she averred that Joseph had pulled her into the closet and locked her in a bear hug with his hand over her mouth while screaming and threatening to kill her and their sons. She further stated that she kn

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Elizabeth Ann Hill v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2008).

Elizabeth Ann Hill v. State (Elizabeth Ann Hill v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Ford v. State
158 S.W.3d 488 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Watson v. State
204 S.W.3d 404 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Swain v. State
181 S.W.3d 359 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Ex Parte Williams
758 S.W.2d 785 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1988)
Cartier v. State
58 S.W.3d 756 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Miller v. State
177 S.W.3d 177 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Sanchez v. State
23 S.W.3d 30 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Moore v. State
295 S.W.3d 329 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2009)
State v. Ross
32 S.W.3d 853 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Guzman v. State
955 S.W.2d 85 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1997)