In discretionary transfer proceeding, probable cause
was established of the juvenile as a party, by acting with the intent to promote
or assist the commission of the offense of murder.[Grant v. State](10-1-5A)
On January 27, 2010, the Waco Court of Appeals held
that in a discretionary transfer preceding the juvenile court did not abuse its
discretion in finding sufficient facts and circumstances to warrant a prudent
person to believe that the suspect committed the offense of murder as a party
acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense.
10-1-5A. Grant v. State, No. 10-08-00393-CR,
___ S.W.3d ___, 2010 WL 311430 (Tex.App.-Waco, 1/27/10).
Facts:In the early morning of September 15, 2007,
the body of James Michael Grant (Michael), the father of appellant Grant, was
found lying in a bar ditch a few feet from his pickup. Michael was wrapped in
bed linens and tied with coax cables and yellow nylon ropes. His body had been
stabbed multiple times in the chest and stomach area. Michael was wearing only
boxer shorts and was covered in blood. The tailgate of his pickup was down.
Because it appeared to investigators that Michael had been killed somewhere else
and dumped in the bar ditch, the investigation was moved to Michael's house.
Michael's master bedroom looked like it had been
ransacked. All of the drawers had been pulled out of the dresser. The bed sheets
had been taken off of the bed. Blood was splattered on the wall, the bed, and
the carpet. The garage door was open and there were no signs of a forced entry.
A large comforter soaked in blood was on top of either the washer or the dryer.
Blood was on the doorway leading out into the garage, on the garage floor, and
on the driveway.
Jesus Ramos, a Texas Ranger investigating the murder,
was told by Michael's father, Garnett, that the relationship between Grant and
Michael was bad.
Ramos and Ricky Helms, an investigator with the
Coryell County Sheriff's Department, initially spoke with Grant during the
evening of September 15th. Grant told Ramos he was at home asleep at the time of
the murder. He stated he went to bed at about 11:30 p.m. and slept through the
night. Although Grant's room was across the house from Michael's room, it was a
very small house. Grant stated to Ramos that Michael sold drugs and that Grant
believed someone had killed Michael. Grant denied hearing any commotion in the
house.
Ramos noticed during the interview that there was a
lot of hate in Grant and that Grant was not emotional or distraught that his
father had been killed. Ramos also thought Grant had a cocky attitude. While
Ramos was questioning Grant, Grant would not answer a question until the next
question was asked, as if Grant was stalling. When Ramos continued with his
questions, Grant became upset. He pointed his finger at Ramos and told Ramos not
to interrupt him. Grant affirmed that he and Michael had a physical altercation
in the past. When asked if he could take his father, Grant was very confident
and cocky, stating he could hold his own. During the interview, Ramos got the
impression that Grant was intentionally attempting to be manipulative or
deceitful. When Grant left the room to go to the bathroom during the interview,
he grabbed the door handle using his t-shirt. Ramos thought Grant was trying to
prevent him from acquiring Grant's fingerprints.
After the interview with Grant, Ramos searched Megan
Lewis's house with her consent. Megan was Grant's mother and Michael's ex-wife.
Grant was present at the time of the search. Both Megan and Grant acted strange.
They were not distraught about Michael's death. They were laughing and having a
good time, making strange comments. Grant commented that if all he lost that day
was his boots, because they had been taken to be compared to bloody footprints,
then it was a good day.
John Hopkins, Megan's boyfriend, was the first person
arrested for Michael's murder.One day, after the murder and after drinking,
Hopkins put a gun to his head. At one point, Hopkins pointed the gun at Grant to
get him to back off. Megan and Grant called 911. On the recording, Megan and
Grant were both trying to talk Hopkins out of committing suicide. Grant was
pleading with Hopkins not to kill himself. Grant was crying, and toward the end
of the recording, Grant told Hopkins that he loved him. Ramos found Grant's
reaction to Hopkins's suicide attempt strange because Grant had not given that
same emotion about Michael's death.
Hopkins had at some
point prior to the murder been in prison in either New Jersey or
Pennsylvania for a sex offense with a minor female.
By the time police arrived, Hopkins had left the
house. Megan directed the police to a suicide note left by Hopkins. The note
implicated only Hopkins in Michael's murder. But when interviewed after his
arrest, Hopkins confessed to his involvement in the murder and implicated both
Grant and Megan.
Hopkins stated in his confession that Megan wanted
Hopkins to kill Michael so that she could gain custody of her children. He
initially thought Megan was crazy but became so romantically involved with her
that he wanted to please her. Hopkins stated that he asked Grant what he would
think if Hopkins killed Michael. Grant replied that Hopkins would be a king in
their eyes, referring to Grant and Megan. After that, Hopkins decided to kill
Michael and told Megan of his decision. Hopkins said he placed a call to Grant
and told Grant he was going to kill Michael and needed the back door unlocked so
that Hopkins could enter the house. Grant was to call Hopkins when Michael fell
asleep. Grant complied and let Hopkins into Michael's bedroom. Hopkins told
Grant to leave the room. Grant stood in the living room and watched while
Hopkins began stabbing Michael. Afterwards, Grant came in the room, and Hopkins
handed him the knife. Hopkins walked out of the room and heard Grant make
statements such as, You deserved that, you son of a bitch. Hopkins walked back
to the room and found that Michael's body had been removed from the bed and saw
Grant stomping on Michael's chest. Hopkins also stated that once the body was
loaded into the pickup, he and Grant went back in the house and ransacked it.
Then they dumped the body in a bar ditch.
Cellular telephone records showed that a call was made
from Hopkins's phone to Grant's phone at 7:31 p.m. on September 14th. Another
call was made from Hopkins's phone to Grant's phone at 11:35 p.m. Calls from
Grant's phone to Hopkins's phone were made at 11:45 p.m. and 11:58 p.m. on the
14th, and then at 12:39 a.m., 1:21 a.m., 1:50 a.m., 2:13 a.m., 2:15 a.m., and
2:25 a.m. on the 15th of September. There is a call from Michael's phone to
Grant's phone at 1:13 a.m. on the 15th as well.
After Hopkins' confession, warrants were obtained for
Grant's and Megan's arrest. When Ramos arrived to arrest Grant, Grant was
wearing a loose t-shirt. Ramos asked him to raise his arms so Ramos could see if
anything was hidden under the shirt. Grant refused. When Ramos grabbed the
bottom of the t-shirt, Grant slapped Ramos's arm away and told Ramos to get his
fucking hands off of him. Grant was then arrested and re-interviewed.
At the second interview, Grant confirmed that he spoke
to Hopkins at about one or two o'clock in the morning. Hopkins told him he was
coming over to the house and he needed the door opened. Grant said he waited and
when Hopkins arrived, Grant opened the back door to the patio. When Grant asked
Hopkins what he wanted, Hopkins stated, You know what I'm here for, and
displayed a knife strapped to his waist. Grant said he thought Hopkins was there
to kill him. Hopkins told Grant to leave the room and Grant walked into the
living room. Grant stated that Hopkins then proceeded to stab Michael. Grant
stated that at various times he was held at knifepoint or gunpoint and was
forced to help Hopkins. Neither Ramos nor Helms thought Grant was afraid of
Hopkins.
During the investigation, Ramos spoke to E.M., a
classmate of Grant. When, in E.M.'s view, Grant was acting strange one day, E.M.
asked Grant if Grant had killed Michael. Grant nodded his head and made stabbing
motions. E.M. was afraid of revealing this information because when he, Grant,
and Hopkins, were on their way to buy marijuana on day after the murder, Hopkins
told E.M. that if anyone was informing the police about the murder, that person
would be in trouble.
Also during the investigation, Investigator Helms took
a statement from Megan's father. He stated that during Megan and Michael's
divorce, Megan made the statement that she wished Michael was dead or that
someone would kill him. Megan's father said that Grant volunteered to do it for
his mother.
Helms also took a statement from R.H., a juvenile who
was housed in a detention facility in Dennison, Texas. R.H. stated that in
August of 2007, prior to R.H.'s detention, Grant approached him a couple of
times and said that he wanted to kill Michael. They then plotted to kill
Michael. The plan devised was to stab Michael, load him up in a vehicle, and get
rid of the body. R.H. was recruited to help clean up the mess.
Cari Starritt-Burnett, an attorney who assisted
Michael with his divorce, testified that when she heard that Michael had been
killed, she immediately knew there was foul play and that the family was
involved in it. A few months after the divorce, Michael relayed an event to Cari
that caused her concern. Michael told her that he woke up one night to see Grant
holding a knife over him. John Lee, a local attorney and friend of Michael's,
relayed the same incident as told to him by Michael. Lee also said that Grant
showed no emotion at Michael's funeral and that he looked bored. When Lee heard
of Michael's death, he immediately suspected Grant.
Cheryl Tull, Michael's girlfriend at the time of his
death, also testified. She stated that she was around Michael's children on
every other weekend and that it was typical for there to be an uncomfortable
exchange between Michael and Grant at least once or twice a weekend. By the
summer of 2007, Tull had become afraid of Grant. At the end of June, there was
an incident where Grant and Michael had yelled at each other. When Grant went to
his room, he was heard throwing objects. He also punched holes in his wall. When
Grant came out of his room, he said something to the effect, You're going to
die. Tull testified about another episode with Grant during the summer of 2007.
They had been to Schlitterbahn and stopped to spend the night at
Michael's sister's house. There was an ugly scene about where the kids were
going to sleep. The next day on the way home, Grant leaned up in between the
front seats, tapped Michael on his arm and said something to the effect that
there was a place where someone can be stabbed and that the person will die
instantly.
Held:Affirmed
Opinion:Grant first challenges the juvenile
court's finding of probable cause to believe Grant committed the offense of
murder. Specifically, Grant challenges the sufficiency of probable cause to
believe Grant committed murder as a party.
Grant actually
challenges the factual sufficiency of the evidence citing to case law
which used the civil standard for factual sufficiency of the evidence as
a review for a probable cause determination and was decided prior to the
change in the Family Code and Code of Criminal Procedure which made the
appeal of a transfer hearing a criminal matter. Because we believe the
review of the probable cause determination necessarily encompasses a
review of all the evidence presented at the transfer hearing, as in any
other probable cause analysis, we will utilize the same standard of
review for probable cause in this circumstance that we would to
determine probable cause for any other purpose. See
In re D.W.L., 828 S.W .2d 520, 524 (Tex.App.-Houston
[14th Dist.] 1992, no writ).
Probable cause consists of sufficient facts and
circumstances to warrant a prudent person to believe that the suspect committed
the offense.
In re K.B.H., 913 S.W.2d 684, 689 (Tex.App.-Texarkana
1995, no pet.);
In re D.W.L., 828 S.W.2d 520, 524 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th
Dist.] 1992, no writ). A person commits an offense as
a party if acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of an offense;
he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid another person to
commit an offense. SeeTex.
Penal Code Ann. § 7.02(a)(2) (Vernon 2003).
After the hearing on the State's petition for
discretionary transfer, the trial court stated on the record,
... there is ample evidence from which to
determine that there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense of murder as a
party with two other charged individuals. And without going into any
specificity of which evidence that is, but simply that the physical
facts of the investigation, the investigation and testimony concerning
the two crime scenes, the juvenile respondent's present (sic) at the
primary crime scene where the offense would have had to have been
committed, the unlikelihood that that could have happened without
someone in that residence having been aware of it, and then with
everything else, the phone calls, the statement of the juvenile
respondent, all of those matters conspire to establish the probable
cause.
Conclusion: After reviewing the record, we find
the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in finding sufficient facts and
circumstances to warrant a prudent person to believe that the suspect committed
the offense of murder as a party acting with intent to promote or assist the
commission of the offense. Grant's first issue is overruled.