Michelle Chase v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 5, 2019
• Docket: 04-17-00834-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-17-00834-CR

Michelle CHASE, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2016CR4377 Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 5, 2019

AFFIRMED

Michelle Chase was convicted by a jury of murder and sentenced by the trial court to forty-

five years’ imprisonment. The sole issue presented on appeal is whether the evidence is legally

insufficient to support the jury’s rejection of Chase’s claim that she acted in self-defense. We

affirm the trial court’s judgment.

BACKGROUND

On February 7, 2016, Officer Matthew Flores was dispatched to the scene of a murder.

The body of the victim, William Farr, was found in front of Chase’s apartment. Farr was deaf. A 04-17-00834-CR

note containing the word “sorry” was beside Farr’s body, and he had a pen in his hand. Officer

Flores recalled responding to a call at the same location about a year earlier during which time he

communicated with a deaf man by written notes. In response to that call, this man was told to

leave the premises because his presence was unwanted. Officer Flores testified the man was not

aggressive and simply walked off.

At the scene, Chase initially told Officer Flores she last saw Farr over a year ago but later

told him she saw Farr every other Sunday. Chase told Officer Flores that Farr would stay with her

when he needed a place to stay. Officer Flores noticed Chase would not give him a direct answer

to his questions. Chase did not tell Officer Flores that Farr was violent. Officer Flores also spoke

with Will Palmer, another resident of the apartment complex, who told Officer Flores he saw Farr

and Chase together around 10:30 p.m. the prior night.

Sergeant Buddy Branham was assigned to assist Detective Ruben Perez, the lead detective

on Farr’s murder case. Sergeant Branham observed portions of Detective Perez’s first interview

of Chase during which she stated she had no knowledge of what happened and denied any

involvement in the shooting. After Chase decided to terminate the interview, Detective Perez and

Sergeant Branham drove Chase to her godfather’s house. During the drive, Sergeant Branham

testified Chase continued to speak to Detective Perez, and Sergeant Branham believed Chase was

trying to steer the investigation toward two men. Upon arriving at the home of Chase’s godfather,

Chase and Sergeant Branham exited the car. Sergeant Branham told Chase she needed to be

truthful and explain what had happened at that time rather than delay. When Sergeant Branham

then asked Chase if she had shot Farr, she replied she had shot him. At that time, Chase was driven

back to the police station and given a second opportunity to provide a statement. During her second

interview, Chase provided details about where certain evidence could be found, including the gun

Chase used to shoot Farr. Sergeant Branham testified Chase went to a lot of effort to hide the bag

-2- 04-17-00834-CR

containing the gun because it was buried under several bags of clothing in her closet. Despite an

extensive search, Sergeant Branham testified they were unable to find the shell casing from the

shot that was fired that ultimately killed Farr.

Will Palmer, the resident of the apartment complex who initially spoke with Officer Flores,

testified he saw Chase the night of February 6, 2016, around 10:30 or 11:00 p.m. when he pulled

into the complex’s parking lot. The light in Chase’s truck was on, and Palmer saw her going

through her truck while Farr was standing next to a nearby tree. Palmer stated Chase did not

appear scared or nervous, and Chase and Farr were not interacting with each other. Palmer went

inside his apartment and never heard anyone scream. Palmer described Farr as a “laid back type

of guy” who was not rowdy or violent. Palmer testified he saw Chase and Farr together on a

regular basis, and Chase never appeared to be afraid of Farr. Palmer testified he believed Farr was

living with Chase.

Detective Perez made contact with Chase at the scene after he spoke with Officer Flores.

Chase told him she met Farr around 2012. Chase also told Detective Perez that she saw Farr twice

on February 6, 2016, and the second time she suggested that he come home with her because he

was hanging around with bad people; however, Farr told her to mind her own business. Chase

then told Detective Perez she went to her godfather’s house around 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. where she

stayed the rest of the night. She discovered Farr’s body on the sidewalk in front of her apartment

when she returned home the following morning. Detective Perez then spoke with Palmer who told

him he had seen Chase and Farr together around 10:30 p.m. on February 6, 2016. When Detective

Perez confronted Chase with that information, she was initially evasive but then stated she left

after Palmer saw them, and other people were nearby when she left.

The following morning, the autopsy results revealed Farr had a bullet wound to his chest

that neither Detective Perez nor Officer Flores noticed at the scene. Dr. Rajesh Kannan, a deputy

-3- 04-17-00834-CR

medical examiner, testified the gunshot made a hole through Farr’s heart, causing extensive

bleeding inside his chest. Upon returning to Chase’s apartment, Detective Perez looked closely at

the screen door and noticed a hole that was consistent with a bullet going through the screen.

Christina Vachon, a forensic scientist, testified gunshot residue on the screen door to Chase’s

apartment was evidence that the screen door came in contact with or was in close proximity to a

discharging firearm.

Detective Perez testified Chase voluntarily went to the police station on February 8, 2016,

to be interviewed, and during the interview, she continually referred to other people who might

have been involved in Farr’s death. When Detective Perez asked Chase if she had any weapons,

she denied ever owning a gun, and she refused to consent to a search of her apartment. As

Detective Perez drove Chase to her godfather’s house following the interview, Chase continued to

repeat Farr hangs out with bad men. After arriving at Chase’s godfather’s house, Detective Perez

started to complete the consent-to-search paperwork of Chase’s cell phone when he heard her say

she wanted to go back to the station to provide a second statement. While she gave the second

statement, Chase consented to a search of her apartment.

Based on the investigation, Detective Perez obtained a warrant for Chase’s arrest. After

she was arrested, Chase provided a third statement which Detective Perez described as being

inconsistent with her prior statements. Detective Perez testified based on his investigation, Chase

stated she did not call anyone after she shot Farr. But when confronted with the cell phone records

that showed multiple phone calls, Chase stated she kept her phone in her bra, and it must have

dialed itself. Based on his investigation, Detective Perez testified he did not believe Chase acted

in self-defense because people who act in self-defense immediately explain what happened to the

police.

-4- 04-17-00834-CR

Michelle Smith, Chase’s daughter, lived with Chase for about a year but moved out a few

months before the shooting. Smith described Farr as “pretty chill” but stated things would “get

difficult” between Chase and Farr when Farr would drink excessively. Smith testified Farr broke

the windows of Chase’s truck on one occasion.

At trial, Chase testified she knew Farr for a year to a year and a half but denied that Farr

lived with her or ever spent the night. Chase testified Farr was aggressive when he was drinking,

and she called the police on him three times, including on July 18, 2014, when Farr “busted” the

windows of her vehicle. Chase later testified she called the police over ten times when Farr would

arrive at her apartment and bang on her door and windows.

On the night Chase shot Farr, she testified she was sitting in her truck in her apartment

complex parking lot when Farr hit the truck’s window twice with his fist. Farr was drunk and

demanded money. Chase stated she tried to run into her apartment, but before reaching it, Farr hit

her in the head, knocked her to the ground, and stomped on her arm. Chase testified she was

“hollering” but no one helped her. Chase stated she then ran to her apartment and had her keys in

the dead bolt when Farr grabbed the screen door and hit Chase two more times in the head. Chase

testified Farr also hit her in the center of her back as she opened her door and knocked her down

resulting in her upper body lying inside the apartment and her lower body outside. Chase testified

Farr kicked her as he entered the apartment and stomped on her head. Chase testified she grabbed

a gun from under a chair, turned and fired the gun, and then ran past Farr to her truck “hollering

and screaming.” Chase stated she then drove to her godfather’s house where she stayed the night.

When Chase returned to her apartment the following morning, she found Farr’s body and called

EMS. Chase testified she was not trying to hide the gun she used to shoot Farr.

On cross-examination, the videotape of Chase’s first interview was played for the jury. In

the interview, Chase told Detective Perez she saw Farr with some “bad” guys when she left her

-5- 04-17-00834-CR

apartment. She also stated she stayed the night at her godfather’s house and discovered Farr’s

body in front of her apartment the following morning. Chase further stated she did not have a gun

in her home. Detective Perez asked for consent to search her phone because the phone’s GPS

would confirm her location, but Chase refused to give consent. When Detective Perez asked if

Chase knew that Farr had a bullet hole in him, Chase denied having any knowledge, stating she

“wasn’t there.” Chase would not consent to a search of her apartment.

When questioned about her first interview during trial, Chase admitted her statements were

different from her trial testimony, but she denied lying. She did not recall saying she did not have

a gun in her home. Chase testified she did not tell Detective Perez about Farr beating her because

Detective Perez told her he did not want to hear it when she initially tried to explain it to him

during their first encounter at her apartment. She also stated she was not intending for the police

to investigate the “bad guys” she referred to in her interview. When asked whether she told

Sergeant Branham that she shot Farr, Chase testified she told him she shot “at” Farr.

The videotape of Chase’s second interview was then played for the jury. In her second

interview, Chase stated Farr had been aggressive and violent toward her, and she had called the

police to report it at least ten times. On the night she shot Farr, she stated she was looking through

her glovebox when Farr hit the truck’s window. She ran into her apartment and closed the door,

but Farr continued to bang on the door. Chase then retrieved the gun from her bedroom closet,

opened the wooden door, and shot Farr through the screen door when he would not leave. Chase

also stated her godfather pulled a shotgun and ordered Farr to leave his house on a prior occasion

when he witnessed Farr being physically violent toward Chase.

On the State’s rebuttal, Vernon Barnett, the man Chase referred to as her godfather,

testified Farr would spend the night at his house occasionally. He also testified Farr was a lot of

help to him and he considered him an excellent friend. Barnett denied ever seeing Farr hit Chase

-6- 04-17-00834-CR

or ever ordering Farr out of his house at gunpoint. Another of Chase’s neighbors also testified

Farr was an easy-going person, and Farr’s former employer testified he had never seen Farr act

violent even when drinking.

After hearing the evidence, the jury found Chase guilty of murder, implicitly rejecting her

claim of self-defense.

DISCUSSION

To prevail on a claim of self-defense with the use of deadly force, a defendant may prove:

(1) he would have been justified in using force against the other person; and (2) it was reasonable

to believe that “deadly force [was] immediately necessary [for protection] against the other’s use

or attempted use of unlawful deadly force.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 9.32(a). “[A] person is

justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the

force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of

unlawful force.” Id. § 9.31(a).

“Once a defendant produces some evidence raising the issue of self-defense, the State bears

the burden of persuasion to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s actions were not

justified.” Valverde v. State, 490 S.W.3d 526, 527-28 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2016, pet. ref’d)

(citing Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d

910, 913 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)); see also Braughton v. State, No. PD-0907-17, 2018 WL

6626621, at *12 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 19, 2018) (“reaffirm[ing] [sufficiency] principles from

Saxton . . . as providing the proper framework for evaluating a claim of insufficient evidence” in

the context of a jury’s rejection of a claim of self-defense). “To meet its burden of persuasion, the

State is not required to produce additional evidence.” Valverde, 490 S.W.3d at 528 (citing Saxton,

804 S.W.2d at 913). “If the jury finds the defendant guilty, it has made an implicit finding against

-7- 04-17-00834-CR

any defensive theory raised by the defendant.” Id. (citing Zuliani, 97 S.W.3d at 594; Saxton, 804

S.W.2d at 914).

“When a defendant challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s

implicit rejection of his self-defense claim, ‘we look not to whether the State presented evidence

which refuted appellant’s self-defense testimony, but rather we 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.’” Id. (quoting Saxton, 804

S.W.2d at 914). “In conducting a legal sufficiency review, we defer to the jury’s assessment of

the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony.” Id. (citing Brooks

v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)).

In arguing the evidence is legally insufficient to support the jury’s implicit rejection of her

claim of self-defense, Chase focuses on her testimony at trial regarding the events preceding the

shooting. Based on the evidence presented, however, the jury could have found Chase’s testimony

not credible. First, Chase’s testimony was inconsistent with her statements to the police. Second,

Chase hid the murder weapon and fled the scene of the offense. See Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d

772, 780 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (recognizing “factfinder may draw an inference of guilt from the

circumstance of flight”); Kirk v. State, 421 S.W.3d 772, 781 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014, pet.

ref’d) (referencing flight from scene as evidence jury could consider in rejecting self-defense

claim). Third, Chase’s testimony regarding Farr’s character was inconsistent with the other

witnesses’ testimony, including the man she referred to as her godfather. Finally, Palmer saw Farr

and Chase in the parking lot on the night of Farr’s murder and did not witness any altercation.

Accordingly, the jury, as the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses, could have disbelieved

Chase’s testimony at trial. Therefore, viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the

-8- 04-17-00834-CR

prosecution, we hold any rational trier of fact could have found against Chase on the self-defense

issue and found the State proved all the essential elements of the murder offense beyond a

reasonable doubt. See Saxton, 804 S.W.2d at 914; Valverde, 490 S.W.3d at 528.

CONCLUSION

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

-9-