Keller, P.J., delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court.
Appellants Rex Allen Nisbett and George Delacruz were convicted of murder in unrelated trials. Although the cases are factually unrelated, there are many factual similarities between the two, including that, in each case, the victims body and the murder weapon were never recovered. In Nisbetts case, the court of appeals held the evidence to be insufficient to support the conviction and rendered a judgment of acquittal. In Delacruzs case, a different (but overlapping) panel of that court affirmed the conviction. We granted review and consolidated these cases to address the appropriate analysis when the victims body and the murder weapon are not found. We ultimately hold that the evidence was legally sufficient to support both convictions. Consequently, we reverse the court of appealss judgment in Nisbetts case and affirm the judgment in Delacruzs case.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Nisbett
Nisbett and his wife Vicki had a troubled relationship and were getting a divorce. Vicki had moved to an apartment with their three children, but she allowed Nisbett to live with them during the days leading up to Christmas of 1991. On December 14, Vicki had plans to attend a company Christmas party with a co-worker. Vicki and Nisbett argued about Vicki going to the party, and at some point during the altercation Nisbett choked her. Vicki did not meet the co-worker as she had planned to do, and she never showed up at the party. In fact, after December 14, 1991, Vicki was never seen or heard from again. Nisbett had previously made statements suggesting a wish to murder his wife, he engaged in suspicious activity and made suspicious statements to law enforcement and others on or after the date of Vickis disappearance, he wrote a check on Vickis bank account after her disappearance, there was circumstantial evidence linking him to Vickis car after her disappearance, and there was physical evidence indicating that Vicki had been killed. Her body, however, was never recovered, and law enforcement never located a possible murder weapon.
We set forth the facts developed at trial in further detail below.
1. Nisbett and Vickis Troubled Relationship
Nisbett and Vicki were high school sweethearts. They married shortly after high school and they had three sons together. Around ten years later, on November 15, 1991, Vicki filed for divorce and moved with the children to a new apartment. Nisbett opposed the divorce. He wanted to stay near the boys during the holidays, so Vicki allowed him to stay with them, with the understanding that it was a temporary situation and that she was still moving forward with the divorce.
Jerry Fryer, the Nisbetts pastor, testified that he had developed a relationship with Nisbett and Vicki through the Trinity Christian Center and that part of his ministry included helping couples who were experiencing difficulty in their relationships. Fryer had been counseling Vicki and Nisbett together, and he also counseled Vicki individually. During his last meeting with Vicki, two or three days before she disappeared, she was crying and appeared to be extremely fearful. She declined Fryers offer to help arrange a different place for her to stay during this troubled period.
2. Nisbetts Statements Suggesting Desire to Murder Vicki
Nisbett once told Vickis brother that he would kill Vicki before he let her divorce him and take his three boys. Nisbett told a co-worker that he had caught his wife cheating on him and thought about killing her, but that wouldnt be the Christian thing to do. Nisbett had also previously gone to his brother Mikes property with Vickis brother Mark. Nisbett showed Mark excavation holes that had been dug and said, You could throw a body in there and no one would ever find it.
3. Suspicious Circumstances on the Day Vicki Disappeared
On Saturday, December 14, 1991, Vicki had plans to attend her company Christmas party with co-worker Julie Coen Tower. Tower spoke with Vicki several times throughout the day to confirm their plans. When Tower first called Vicki at around 2:30 p.m., she overheard Nisbett and Vicki arguing. Vicki was agitated and upset, and she explained that she wanted to keep her plans with Tower but that she was arguing with Nisbett because he did not want her to go to the party. When Tower called a few hours later, at 5:00 p.m., the arguing had not abated. Vicki told her that Nisbett had choked her and left bruise marks on her neck and throat. Vicki sounded pretty hysterical during that phone conversation, and Tower told Vicki to get her stuff and come to Towers apartment immediately and they could get ready for the party there. When Vicki failed to show up after thirty or forty-five minutes, Tower called her again. Nisbett answered the phone and said that Vicki had just left and was headed to the party or to Towers place. Thirty minutes later, around 6:00 or 6:30 p.m., after Vicki still had not arrived, Tower called again. This time, Nisbett told Tower that Vicki had told him that Tower had slowed her down a little bit and she just went ahead and went straight to the party. Vicki was not seen at the Christmas party.
Wayne Castleberry also spoke with Vicki on that Saturday. Wayne had met Vicki at a local nightclub, and they had exchanged numbers. They later met for lunch and talked during the week on the phone. Vicki had explained to Wayne that she was going through a divorce but would like to see more of him after Nisbett moved out. When Wayne called Vickis apartment the afternoon of December 14, Nisbett picked up another phone extension to eavesdrop. In a harsh tone, Nisbett accused Vicki of talking about him and told her to hang up the phone. Vickis demeanor changed and she responded suddenly with, I have to get off the phone, and hung up. Wayne and Vicki had planned to meet after the Christmas party, but he never heard from her again.
Morris Bubba Smith lived in the same apartment complex as Vicki with his sister, Lana Faye Reed. Bubba recalled that Nisbett came over late one afternoon in December and asked to borrow his car, a 1969 Nova. Nisbett also asked Bubba to watch his three boys. Nisbett returned the car to Bubba the next morning, but it was damaged-there was damage to the chrome rims around the headlights and the trunk lock was knocked out. Bubba could not recall the exact time or date that Nisbett borrowed his car, but his sister Lana remembered because she rented movies for the children when they were asked to babysit. Lana corroborated these details by providing investigators with a receipt for the movie rentals dated December 14, 1991. Bubba had never babysat for the boys before.
Between 9:30 and 9:35 p.m. on December 14, a police officer saw a car traveling northbound on South Bell Road (also known as highway 183) in Cedar Park. The car was traveling slowly in the left lane, so the officer ran the license plate number. The license plate was from Vickis car. The officer was going initiate a traffic stop, but he received a more serious call from dispatch to which he needed to immediately respond. The location where the car was seen was between where Vicki lived when she disappeared and where she and appellant used to live-Liberty Hill-before Vicki filed for divorce.
4. No Sign of Vicki after the Day She Disappeared
On Monday, December 16, Vicki did not show up for work. Her unexplained absence concerned her supervisor, Sheila Vanderwood, because it was out of character for Vicki to miss work without calling in. When Vanderwood called Vickis apartment, Nisbett picked up the phone and said that he had not seen her since she left for the party. Vanderwood told Nisbett that she intended to report Vicki missing. Shortly after she did so, Nisbett also reported Vicki missing.
When Officer Proctor arrived at Vickis apartment to file the missing persons report, two days after she disappeared, her apartment was immaculately clean. This was uncharacteristic of Vickis apartment, which was usually cluttered and in a state of disarray, with things strung around, in a way that is normal for a home with children. All of Vickis personal effects were still in her bathroom, which led Officer Proctor to believe that she had not left town.
None of Vickis family members ever saw or heard from her again, nor did anyone at Vickis place of employment. After December 14, Vicki did not write any checks or withdraw any money from her bank account. She did not renew her drivers license when it expired. The Department of Public Safetys Missing Persons Clearinghouse pored through various databases looking for any electronic evidence that Vicki was still alive and could find none. No activity involving her social security number could be found. There were no vehicle registrations, no phone bills, and no municipal utility bills connected to her. In addition, Vickis fingerprints, dental records, and DNA profile were in national databases, and no hits were received on any of these. At the time of trial, the Clearinghouse had been actively searching for Vicki, alive or dead, for over 22 years.
There was also testimony from Vickis mother, pastor, and a co-worker that Vicki was a good mother who would not abandon her children.
5. Nisbetts Suspicious Behavior and Statements to Law Enforcement
The morning after the Christmas party, Nisbett called Tower and asked where his wife was. Tower responded, You tell me. What did you do with her? Nisbett hung up.
Nisbett did not contact Vickis mother, Carol Johnson, for several months after Vicki disappeared, and he did not allow her to spend time with her grandsons until seven or eight months later. He then limited her visits and exposure to the boys-not allowing her to spend time alone with them. This was a significant departure from the relationship Carol had enjoyed with her grandsons before Vicki disappeared. Nisbett explained that he needed to monitor the visits because he needed to protect himself.
Vickis apartment was designated a crime scene in January of 1992. Chief Richard Elliott told the apartment complex manager, Lori Johnston, that he suspected foul play at Vickis apartment, and she gave Elliott consent to investigate. Nisbett showed up twice while investigators searched Vickis apartment. He first arrived at 6:30 p.m. and wanted to know what the investigators were doing. Elliott explained that they were looking for evidence in the master bedroom. Nisbett assured everyone that Vicki was ok-that she had just run away-and suggested that the investigators were wasting their time. Chief Elliott testified that, although it was cold in January, Nisbett was visibly sweating and appeared to be extremely nervous. Nisbett returned later that evening at around 9:30 p.m. to inquire about what the investigators discovered. Elliott told Nisbett that he would have a preliminary report from the Crime Lab the next day, and he invited Nisbett to come to his office at the station then to go over all the information and his theory about what happened to Vicki. Nisbett did not show up at Elliotts office the next day. Instead, an attorney called Elliott to say that Nisbett would not be showing up, and he asked Elliott to refrain from speaking to Nisbett.
Further into the investigation, Elliot arranged for Vickis mother to get a message to Nisbett that investigators had found Vickis body. Elliotts hope was that this news would spook Nisbett into some sort of action that would lead them to evidence of Vickis whereabouts, or perhaps the remains of her body. Elliott set up unmarked patrol cars and surveillance around Nisbetts apartment and waited for Vickis mother to give Nisbett the message. Elliotts team watched Nisbett come outside of his apartment two times and walk around in the parking lot for a few minutes before going back inside. Nisbett was picked up by a female, and she drove him up Highway 183. They went down a road that had several large wooded areas, and they finally arrived at Blockhouse Creek Elementary School. Elliott testified that he later searched some of those areas with cadaver dogs, but the wooded area was enormous, and the search was not fruitful.
After Vicki disappeared, Nisbett gave various stories about where he thought Vicki might be. He initially told investigators that he believed Vicki had run off with another man because she had done so on other occasions. Later into the investigation, however, he stated that he thought Vicki was visiting a girlfriend in Galveston. In the days after Vickis disappearance, Nisbett told Vickis mother that he did not know where Vicki was. Nisbett claimed that he had hired a private investigator for $30,000 to locate Vicki, but he never provided the investigators name or was able to confirm that he had actually hired anyone. In April of 1992, when notorious serial killer Kenneth McDuff made the news in Texas as a possible serial killer, Nisbett approached law enforcement to share his belief that McDuff must have been responsible for Vickis disappearance. Chief Elliott testified that there were no leads or evidence to support a theory that Kenneth McDuff was linked to Vickis disappearance.
Nisbett initially denied having any physical altercation with Vicki on the evening of her party but later told investigators that he pushed her away after she initiated a physical altercation. He also told investigators that he stayed at home with the kids the entire night Vicki disappeared, but this statement was contradicted by his neighbors testimony that they babysat the kids and watched movies while Nisbett borrowed Bubbas car.
6. The Check Nisbett Forged and Vickis Car
Five days after Vickis disappearance, Nisbett forged Vickis signature on one of her checks to pay for gasoline. The check number was 698, and Vickis bank account indicated that this check had been written out of sequence with other checks that Vicki had previously written on the account. Nisbett appeared to be surprised to learn that investigators were monitoring Vickis checking account, and he admitted that he had signed the check with Vickis name. This check was the only check that posted to Vickis account after she disappeared.
When the sheriffs office released the license plate number of Vickis missing car in an attempt to locate it, Nisbett called to ask why and seemed to be a little upset and concerned about that. About two months after Vicki disappeared, police found the car in an HEB parking lot. There was testimony that, before the car was recovered, it-or a car that looked like it-had been seen intermittently at the HEB parking lot.
Even though Nisbetts name was listed on the vehicle registration, he refused consent to search the car. When officers finally did search it, they found Vickis checkbook. Investigators noted an out-of-sequence check missing from the checkbook that was later confirmed to be the same check that Nisbett used to buy gas. Investigators also discovered that the cars interior dome light had been removed, disabling any automatic light function when the doors opened.
7. Vickis Blood in the Apartment and Appellants Bloody Handprint
Forensic investigators initiated a search of Vickis apartment five weeks after she disappeared, when Nisbett was evicted. A serologist observed stains on the carpet and on the sheetrock on the walls. The stains were visible to the naked eye, but it was not possible to determine what the stains were just by looking. The results of a chemical test performed on the stains confirmed that they were human blood.
The serologist also sprayed luminol across the master bedroom and discovered what appeared to be blood stains and drag marks. Investigators pulled up the carpet and discovered a larger concentration of blood that had soaked into the padding. Using the same technique with the luminol spray, investigators discovered what appeared to be a handprint, in blood, on the wall next to a light switch. The investigators excised the part of the sheetrock with the bloody handprint and cut out sections of the bloody carpet and padding, and sent the evidence to other laboratories for DNA and fingerprint testing.
The bloodstains on the wall in Vickis bedroom and on the carpet and carpet padding in the bedroom closet were determined to be made of Vickis blood. The bloody handprint on the wall was also determined to be made from Vickis blood.
Chief Elliott executed a search warrant in 1992 to procure sample evidence of Nisbetts hair, blood, and finger and palm prints. Nisbett told the officers that, regardless of the warrant, he would not voluntarily give them any samples-they would have to obtain the evidence by force. Elliott responded that they would oblige Nisbett, but after he explained the consequences of a physical altercation, Nisbett cooperated and allowed investigators to take the samples. Latent print specialists determined that the bloody handprint on the sheetrock matched Nisbetts prints.
B. Delacruz
Delacruz and his wife Julie had a troubled relationship and were getting a divorce. Julie had moved out of Delacruzs home, but she went there to pick up their daughter on March 26, 2010. She was never seen or heard from again. Electronic evidence indicates that Delacruz deviated significantly from his usual routine on the day Julie disappeared, that he possessed Julies cell phone, that he used her credit card, and that he fabricated text messages and social media posts purporting to be from Julie. Delacruz had made statements disparaging his wife, and he engaged in suspicious activity and made suspicious statements to law enforcement and others on and after the date she disappeared. There was also evidence that he dug a hole designed to bury a human body, that Cadaver dogs alerted near this hole, and that something had been burned near the hole. Julies body, however, was never recovered, and law enforcement never located a possible murder weapon.
We set forth the facts developed at trial in further detail below.
1. Julie Was Known as a Responsible Person and Caring Mother Who Had Many Close Relationships
Delacruz and Julie married young and had a daughter together, L.D. Julie was widely known as a mature and responsible individual and as a caring and attentive mother who doted on her daughter. Julies mother, Sandra Soto, described Julie as a very responsible person and observed that, even though Julie prioritized her education and work, nothing was more important to her than L.D. L.D. had asthma, and she required medication. Julie was always prompt to take L.D. to her doctor visits and to administer L.D.s medicine when necessary.
Julie worked as a pharmacy technician at Walgreens, and by all professional accounts, she was a model employee. Her supervisor considered Julie to be her best pharmacy technician, and the one upon whom she depended the most. The store manager found that Julie was capable of handling any task and was never late for work. Julie was a very happy-go-lucky person who got along with everyone, and she never had any problems with co-workers or customers.
Julie spent a great deal of time with her sister Samantha-going to movies or dinner during the week, talking on the phone constantly, and hanging out together every other weekend. Michael Soto, Julies cousin, had a close relationship with Julie and considered her to be more like a sister. Julie was best friends with Natasha Navarro and Amanda Hays, and the three of them did everything together. Julie was described by members of Delacruzs own family-his mother, sister, and cousin-as mature, responsible, smart, kind, and valuing education.
2. Julie and Delacruzs Troubled Relationship
Julie and Delacruz met during their last year of high school, and they moved in together after graduation in 2006. They had a daughter, L.D., and married in May of 2009. They moved in with Delacruzs mother, Victoria Delacruz, where they lived for a time with their young daughter and Delacruzs three younger sisters.
Shortly after they married, Julie began to complain to her friends and family that she was having problems in her marriage. Delacruz was obsessed with playing video games, sometimes playing for six or seven hours at a time. He spent most of his time playing video games instead of maintaining a job, attending to domestic duties, or caring for L.D. He even played video games at the hospital while Julie was in labor. Julie became concerned with Delacruzs ability to adequately care for their daughter and would often express concerns about leaving L.D. alone with him. According to Julies aunt, Julie did not like to go home because she and Delacruz would argue about his incessant video gaming. She would also often come home to find L.D. dirty, unfed, and in need of her medication.
Julie and Delacruz separated in November of 2009, and Julie moved into her grandparents house in Dripping Springs. Julie used her tax refund to buy a new car, a 2006 Chevrolet Impala. Julie was excited about having this new car-something she could call her own-and it appeared to many that it represented her financial achievement and personal independence.
Julies cousin Michael observed that Julie and Delacruzs relationship became increasingly complicated after the birth of L.D. and that Delacruz became controlling of Julies time and attention. Michael knew that Delacruz had physically and verbally abused Julie more than once.
Michael and Delacruz hung out about three or four times over the course of a month after the separation until his mother and Julie advised him to stop. Delacruz took Michael to the mall to buy clothes, they went to a tattoo parlor together, and they would sometimes just drive around and smoke. Michael believed that Delacruz was attempting to remain in Julies life by hanging out with him, because whenever they spent time together, Delacruz pried for information about Julie. Specifically, Delacruz wanted to know what Julie was doing or if she was seeing someone new.
Julies separation from Delacruz was difficult, and their relationship was rocky. She had filed divorce papers, but Delacruz refused to sign them. Despite their difficulties, Julie always tried to maintain good communication with Delacruz for L.D.s sake. Matters were more difficult when Julie had to interact with Delacruz in person while picking up or dropping off L.D., and she typically went with her cousin Michael on those occasions. In February of 2010, Julie asked Michael and one of his friends to accompany her to Delacruzs house to collect some of her possessions. Although the visit was without incident, Michaels friend thought that Delacruz was trying to get Julie alone in a room, so Michael and the friend kept a watchful eye on the situation.
Julies supervisor at work received complaints that Delacruz was lingering around the pharmacy in the waiting area and watching Julie work. Delacruz called the pharmacy several times while Julie was working, and Julies productivity wasnt going very well because he was totally trying to control every little situation. Delacruzs behavior became so distracting that Julies supervisor had to kick him out of the store. Over the course of her separation from Delacruz, Julie confided in her supervisor. She said she was in fear for her life, that Delacruz had said that if he couldnt have Julie or L.D., nobody would, and that he followed her around in his car. Julie told her supervisor that if anything ever happened to her, it was him.
Julie told her mother that she felt that Delacruz was up to something. The last time she talked to her sister before her disappearance she kept repeating that she had a bad feeling.
An inmate incarcerated with Delacruz after his arrest would later recount a conversation in which Delacruz admitted to physically assaulting a girlfriend and causing her to become unconscious.
3. Julies New Boyfriend
Around the same time that she separated from Delacruz, Julie started to date Aaron Breaux, a man with whom she had shared an on-again, off-again relationship in the past. After running into each other at a grocery store, Julie and Aaron rekindled their relationship through email and eventually started to see each other regularly.
About two or three months into her new relationship with Aaron, Julie began staying over at his apartment. Although Julie was initially cautious about bringing L.D. into her relationship with Aaron, the relationship soon evolved to a point where Julie was comfortable involving her daughter in her life with Aaron. Photographs showed Julie, Aaron, and L.D. together at the zoo, and Aarons roommate was aware that Aaron sometimes took L.D. fishing. L.D. frequently stayed overnight at Aarons apartment with Julie, where she also kept some of her daughters belongings.
Josh Dear was Aarons roommate of three years. According to Josh, Julie and Aaron were taking the prospect of building a future together seriously: they planned to eventually move into their own apartment; they discussed their financial situations; and they made itemized lists about how they could meet the bills at the end of the month. And they discussed the timing of their work schedules to figure out how to best care for L.D.
On March 25, 2010, Julie went to dinner with her friend Amanda and with Aaron. According to Amanda, Julie was excited and overjoyed at dinner. Julie and Aaron talked happily about their future and made plans to look at houses in which they could live together. After dinner, Julie and Aaron returned to Aarons apartment where they watched a movie and stayed overnight.
4. Delacruzs Disparaging Online Statements About Julie Before She Disappeared
Delacruz had a page on the social media site MySpace and routinely posted messages there. On January 12, 2010, he posted a message regarding mistakes he made. He stated that finding love was a big mistake but that mistake gave him L.D., whom he loved. On January 22, he posted that he was cleaning some old memories away. On February 23, he posted a message containing obscenities; at midnight the next day, he sent an obscenity-laced email to Julie that complained about her making his life miserable. After Julie responded and pleaded with him to make L.D. a priority, Delacruz responded and accused Julie of being the ugly person not me, saying that what she did was wrong, and claiming that Julie always blamed him but that he did not care because he knew what he had to do and dont trust me anymore cause I dont want u too. Later, Delacruz posted to his MySpace page a message titled Too Hard to Forget:
When everything settles down and my fun stops all the shit returns it just dont go away. Its just hard to forget about it hate it cause I cant move on I tried and tried but its not doing anything. I just miss the old times. Im sorry so sorry.
Around midnight on March 7, Delacruz posted a message that the way things r going its leaning toward my original plan. Appellant sent Julie another email and posted other material on MySpace that showed him to be aggravated and moody.
5. Suspicious Circumstances on the Day Julie Disappeared
Julie had the day off work on Friday, March 26, 2010, and she stayed at Aarons house the night before. Julie tried to persuade Aaron to stay in with her that day, but he needed the work hours to pay bills. Aaron told Julie he loved her, kissed her goodbye, and left his apartment between 6:00 and 6:15 a.m., while Julie slept in for a bit longer. Julie planned to go to Delacruzs house later that morning to pick up L.D. with her cousin, Michael. But Michael had to work that day, so Julie went to Delacruzs house alone.
That morning, Delacruz and L.D. walked across the street to a neighbors house. The neighbor, Joe Cruz, had been Delacruzs neighbor for nearly twenty years, but this was the first time Delacruz had come to his home and spoken to him. Delacruz told Joe that he was getting a divorce and that Julie had gone missing.
Aaron texted Julie throughout the morning of March 26, but did not receive any responses. He called Julie once in the morning and again around lunchtime. Around 2:00 p.m. that day, he received a text from Julies phone that read something along the lines of I cant do this anymore. Aaron testified at trial that it appeared to be a break-up text. He was surprised by the tone and content of the message and continued to reach out to Julie throughout the day. Aaron testified that he had a gut feeling that something was wrong, and he eventually grew suspicious that someone else was in possession of Julies phone. It did not sound like Julie. As a test, Aaron sent a message to Julies phone asking her to respond with his middle name, something that only she would know. The response he received from Julies phone was, I dont feel like playing games. Aaron responded that he needed to talk to Julie over the phone and that he wanted to hear her voice. When he called Julies phone after he got off work, her phone was turned off.
Although Julie and Aaron did not live together, she kept some clothing and personal items at his apartment. Aaron thought it would be unusual for Julie to leave all of her stuff at his place if her intention was to break up with him later that day, so he returned straight home after work to see if Julie had packed up her things. All of Julies and L.D.s belongings were still at his place and he also found a love letter from Julie that she had placed on his pillow before leaving that morning. The letter read, in part:
I started dreaming about when we first saw each other again. I looked at my calendar and it was 161 days ago. Can you believe it? I was like wow. I can honestly say they have been the happiest-well, I cant say the happest because our happiest days havent come yet. Like the day we get married and have our little boy ... I cant express to you how much I love you and how happy I am to be with you ... I absolutely will marry you. I would be happy to ... I still cant believe how lucky I am to be with you. You make me so happy. You are so special to me and there is no one else like you. You make me smile all the time. You make me feel special and loved ... Its almost here. August. Like five months or so until we will be living together. I cant wait waking up together every morning ...
Julies friends and family were all alarmed that she was unreachable. Everyone knew Julie to be dependable, punctual, and responsive-especially with family members. Samantha, Julies sister, testified that if [Julie] wouldnt talk to one relative, then she would always talk to another relative. She would-every day she would constantly talk to someone in the family. Samantha recognized that something was wrong when Julie did not contact her at all on Friday. Julies cousin, Alyssa Soto, also learned that Friday that Julie was missing.
Julies friend Amanda became worried that Friday after seeing a post on Julies Facebook page purporting to indicate that she wanted to run away. Amanda felt that something was really wrong and that she needed to talk to her.
Natasha Navarro was in New Orleans on the day that Julie disappeared. Amanda reached out to Natasha about some weird stuff that had been posted to Julies online social media. None of the messages resonated with Natasha, and she thought it was highly unusual. After repeatedly and unsuccessfully attempting to get in touch with Julie, she received a text message from Julies phone that stated: I didnt love Aaron. I thought I did. To Natasha, that text message sounded like something Julie would never say. That sounds like something Delacruz would say.
Julies aunt, Dora Soto, had plans to see Julie on the Friday she disappeared. Julie told Dora that she would stop by for lunch or come by to see her at work, but she never showed up. When Julie did not answer her calls or texts, Dora was immediately concerned because that was not her norm. Dora promptly reached out to other family members to ask about Julie.
Michael testified that he spoke with Julie every day, and that she always answered his calls no matter what. Julie was supposed to pick Michael up from work that Friday afternoon, but when he called her after his shift, no one answered. He continued to call Julies phone to no avail. Finally, he sent Julie a text asking her what was wrong, to which he received the response: Nothing. Michael eventually asked his mother to pick him up from work, and they wondered together why Julie was not picking up her phone. They grew concerned and decided to drive by Delacruzs house to see if Julies car was there because that was the last place [they] knew she went that anyone had heard from her. Michael said, It wasnt like Julie just not to talk to anybody.
According to a cell phone expert, Julie was an above average user. In the months before she disappeared, Julie averaged between twenty-five and thirty inbound and outbound calls, forty and fifty texts, and sixty and seventy data connections per day. People who regularly spoke with Julie over the phone were unable to do so on the day she went missing. And even though no one spoke to her on that Friday, many of Julies friends and family members received strange texts from Julies phone on the day she disappeared. Some of these texts suggested that Julie was leaving Aaron and going to Colorado to see a man none of her friends or family had ever heard of.
There were also strange messages posted to Julies online social media. Several posts to Julies Myspace page that day purported to indicate that Julie had run away. At 12:29 p.m., Julies account posted: going away hate all this bs want to run away. At 7:06 p.m., the following message was posted to Julies Myspace page:
Everything Is so hard I hate hurting people I love Im with the one I loved and Im with the other one that I love. I hate how things turned out I just wish I never met them. Im here miles and miles away from everybody hopefully I will find myself in these few days. He better show me a good time here and make me forget about everything in Austin. I dont want to go back and tell him I screwed up Im so afraid but Ill see what happens.
On Saturday, March 27, 2010, the following message was posted to Julies account at 1:57 a.m.: really happy for leaving austin I love this place and I miss my ay bay bay. Other odd messages, purporting to suggest that Julie was alive, disillusioned, and running away, were posted at various times later that day.
6. Delacruzs Uncharacteristic Gaming Inactivity
Records from Microsoft corroborated testimony about Delacruzs obsession with video games. Records from March to May of 2010 reflected that Delacruz was a heavy gamer who used his Xbox every day. But Delacruzs Xbox activity was unusually silent during periods of time on March 25 through March 27-spanning the day before, the day of, and the day after Julies disappearance. The records revealed no Xbox activity from 11:45 p.m. on Thursday, March 25 through 8:23 p.m. on Friday, March 26. And from 8:23 p.m. to 1:03 a.m., Delacruzs Xbox was left in dashboard mode (a sort of standby mode), which was by far the longest time recorded for the review period.
7. Delacruzs Suspicious Behavior and Statements to Law Enforcement
Michael wanted to confront Delacruz at his home on Saturday night, because he knew he did something. Michael arranged for a friend to drive him to Delacruzs house, and when he knocked on the front door, Delacruzs little sister opened the door and told Michael that he was in the backyard with some other people. Michael went around to the backyard to find Delacruz and some of his friends gathered around a shed and a table. When Michael instructed Delacruz to come here, Delacruz approached him just close enough to where Michael could see his face. Michael testified that he saw scratches on the bridge of Delacruzs nose and near his eyes. On cross-examination, Michael testified:
I didnt get that close. He wouldnt come out of the dark. The way it was, one side was lit up by security light; one side shaded, like, on the corner of the house. He wouldnt come where the security light was, where I was. He was in the shadows.
Delacruzs sister Liliana, Julies mother Sandra, and police officer John Brooks also noticed scratches on Delacruzs nose. Delacruz told Sandra that the scratches were received from L.D. while wrestling but Sandra believed they were too deep to have been inflicted by a toddler.
Although Delacruz had told Joe Cruz on Friday morning that Julie had gone missing, he told an investigating officer that the first time he learned of Julies disappearance was on Saturday night. In his statements to the police, Delacruz painted a very different picture of Julie, her family, and her friends than the police heard from anyone else. Delacruz suggested that Julie was on drugs when she stopped by his place before she disappeared. He claimed that she had a discordant relationship with her mother, who liked drama, that Julie had weird friends who knew where she was, and that Julies family knows something that they dont want to give up. Delacruz suggested that Julie might have run away just to get away from her problems. Delacruz made other statements to the police that were either false or deceptive, including statements about his efforts to call Julie, statements about when and how he discovered she was seeing Aaron, statements that Julie wanted to leave L.D. with him if she was planning to be away, and statements about being employed and having a work schedule. He also denied, untruthfully, that he had access to her MySpace account.
8. Delacruzs Possession of Julies Cell Phone after her Disappearance
There was ample reason to believe that Delacruz was the true author of various baffling, out-of-character text messages and online media posts. Forensic analysis supported the conclusion that Delacruz had possession of Julies cell phone between the morning of March 26 and the evening of March 27. Geolocation data showed that, during this time, the phone was at Delacruzs house for extended periods, was at the Wal-Mart at the time he used Julies credit card (see below), was at Best Buy when he bought and returned various items there, was at a carnival he attended that weekend, and was at another house that Delacruz frequently visited. The length of time the phone was at Delacruzs home was highly unusual, as Julie would typically leave there within five minutes of arriving. Forensic analysis also showed that it was not possible that the phone was in Colorado; it had never left Austin. And a review of Julies cell phone records established that her phone had never called another phone in Colorado or any phone with a Colorado area code. Julies phone records reflected no additional activity after 11:46 p.m. on Saturday, March 27, and her phone was never recovered.
9. Credit Card Charges
Julie last used her credit card on March 25 at an HEB grocery store. Bank records showed the use of the card as a debit card (with a PIN entry), which was consistent with prior purchases. Surveillance video showed Julie at the store. On March 26, purchases were made with that card at a Wal-Mart and at a McDonalds inside the Wal-Mart. Contrary to prior practice, the card was used as a credit card (signature without a PIN entry). Surveillance video showed Delacruz and L.D. at the store during the transactions. One item purchased at the Wal-Mart was an Xbox playing card, which was activated by Delacruz later that night. Other items that were purchased were later found at Delacruzs home.
10. Julies Car is Found
On Sunday, March 28, Dora found Julies car at a Walgreens less than half a mile from Delacruzs house. This was not the Walgreens where Julie worked. A cashier working that night remembered a woman coming into the store, saying that she had car trouble, and asking if she could leave her car in the parking lot overnight. The cashier was unable to identify the woman from a series of photographs culled from store surveillance during that period. It was later determined that Julies car was fully operational.
11. No Sign of Julie Being Alive
Law enforcement personnel made extensive efforts to discover any indication that Julie was alive. They searched credit reports, social media, telecommunication services, and the TCIC and NCIC databases. They contacted Homeland Security regarding any passport activity or international travel. The FBI ran several searches against all the databases of every law enforcement agency in the country to see if anyone has run that name. Searches were conducted using Julies personal information-her name, address, date of birth, social security number, license number, and property ownership-and received no hits.
James Midkiff of the Austin Regional Intelligence Center conducted various searches that involved utility and insurance databases, visa and passport activity, assets, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, associates, relatives, employment activity, facial recognition software, and land, sea, and airport check points. He prepared a no proof of life packet with the assistance of a Homeland Security agent.
Julies family also made efforts to locate her and even appeared on nationally televised programs to ask viewers to report any information they might have regarding her whereabouts. None of these efforts were successful.
12. Freshly Dug Hole in Shed with Ashes Nearby
On March 28, police discovered a freshly dug hole in a shed by Delacruzs home. The hole was five feet wide, five feet long, and two feet deep. There seemed to be no logical reason for the hole, but Delacruz claimed it was for plumbing to turn the shed into an apartment. Family members of Delacruz knew nothing about the hole and called the police upon discovering it on May 4. When Delacruzs mother asked Delacruz about the hole, he denied knowing anything about it, and he made no mention of the hole being dug for plumbing purposes.
Near the hole, there were several tools that appeared to have been used to dig it. Ammunition in a water bottle and a few loose ones were found nearby. A knife and blue latex gloves were found hidden under a picnic table in the backyard, and the police also saw ashes and burned debris on the ground near the shed that contained some burned clothing ... specifically what appeared to be ... purple shoelaces. Cadaver dogs alerted at Delacruzs house and sniffed at some items in the shed, but no body was found.
This digging apparently damaged telecommunication cables. An AT & T service technician responded to reports of service outage on the morning of March 26. He determined that the outage was caused by damage to the underground cables located behind the playhouse in Delacruzs back yard. He explained that damage of this type is normally associated with construction work, so it was unusual for him to find nothing but a woodpile covering up the area. He stated that the cables appeared to have been newly damaged.
II. TRIAL AND APPEAL
Nisbett was convicted of murder and sentenced to forty-two years in prison. Delacruz was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.
In Nisbetts case, the court of appeals held that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the conviction and rendered a judgment of acquittal. The court appeared to doubt that the State proved that Vicki was dead, but assuming for the sake of argument that the State had proved her death with lack of evidence that she was alive, the court held that there was no evidence demonstrating that Nisbett caused her death. Although the court of appeals acknowledged that the State could rely upon an unknown manner and means of death and that the jury was not required to unanimously determine what caused death, the court of appeals nevertheless faulted the State for not showing what the fatal act was. The court of appeals held that the blood found in the apartment was not enough to demonstrate that blood loss was the cause of death because the States experts had indicated that not enough blood had been found to demonstrate a fatal blood loss.
The court acknowledged that a number of suspicious circumstances existed-e.g., the blood in the apartment, the unusual cleanness of the apartment, the absence of any contact with Vicki by anyone who knew her since her disappearance, and that Vicki had children she would not have abandoned-but the court held that these circumstances were not evidence that Vicki was dead or of who caused her death. The court also acknowledged that Nisbett engaged in a number of instances of suspicious behavior-e.g., making threatening comments about Vicki, writing a check on Vickis bank account after she disappeared, borrowing a car from a neighbor that night, telling various lies about his or Vickis conduct that night and about his own conduct after her disappearance-but the court held that this evidence showed guilt only when linked to wrongful conduct and that there was no proof that wrongful conduct had occurred.
Finally, the court of appeals held that, even if it accepted the inference that Vicki was dead and the further speculative inference that Nisbett somehow caused her death by some unknown and unidentified act, the evidence remained insufficient to support the conviction because the evidence failed to demonstrate that Nisbett had the requisite culpable mental state for murder. The court concluded that the evidence did not establish either that Nisbett intentionally or knowingly caused Vickis death or that Nisbett intended to cause serious bodily injury and committed an act clearly dangerous to human life that caused her death.
In Delacruzs case, however, the court of appeals concluded that the evidence was legally sufficient to support a conviction for murder. The court acknowledged that no single piece of evidence definitively proved that Delacruz murdered Julie but concluded that the cumulative force of the evidence was sufficient to show that he did so.
The court pointed to Julies character and circumstantial evidence to establish that she was dead-that Julie had close relationships, had made short and long term plans, would not have left her child, did not take any belongings or withdraw any bank funds, and engaged in no other activity, such as establishing new accounts or utilities, obtaining or disposing of assets, or traveling, that would suggest that she was still alive. The court of appeals also relied upon various items of circumstantial evidence to support the conclusion that Delacruz murdered Julie. The court pointed to his physically and verbally abusive and controlling behavior toward her during their marriage. It cited Delacruzs opposition to the divorce and his threatening and irrational behavior during the couples separation. The court further pointed to Delacruzs uncharacteristic gaming inactivity around the time of Julies disappearance, the hole he dug in his back yard, the ash and the burned clothing, his possession of Julies phone and the messages he sent from that phone, his use of her credit card, the misleading and inconsistent statements he made throughout the investigation to law enforcement, family, and other individuals, and Delacruzs own statements about having committed a violent act against Julie. In responding to Delacruzs arguments, the court of appeals emphasized that circumstantial evidence could be used to support a conviction and that the State was not required to prove how Delacruz caused Julies death.
Delacruz relied on the court of appealss reversal in Nisbetts case, but the court of appeals responded that the question of whether the evidence is sufficient to commit the charged offense is a highly individualized inquiry and that the evidence in this case is quantitatively and qualitatively different from that presented in Nisbett . One point of distinction the court of appeals seems to have found in the two cases is that Delacruzs description to an inmate of causing his girlfriend to become unconscious could have been viewed by a rational jury as a partial description of the murder (though Delacruz did not admit that it was such and it could have been an extraneous offense) while Vickis description of Nisbett choking her could not have been a description of her murder because she survived that incident. However, the court of appeals in Delacruz did not make the jailhouse informants testimony the lynchpin of its analysis but simply considered it as additional evidence. The court noted that the jailhouse-informant evidence was governed by the corroboration requirement in Article 38.075 but that the record contains substantial evidence that tends to connect Delacruz with the offense committed.
III. ANALYSIS
A. General Principles of Sufficiency Review
Due process requires that the State prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, every element of the crime charged. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court must ask whether, after viewing 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. This standard gives full play to the responsibility of the factfinder to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. An appellate court cannot act as a thirteenth juror and make its own assessment of the evidence. A courts role on appeal is restricted to guarding against the rare occurrence when the factfinder does not act rationally.
It is not necessary that the evidence directly prove the defendants guilt; circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in establishing a defendants guilt, and circumstantial evidence can alone be sufficient to establish guilt. Each fact need not point directly and independently to guilt if the cumulative force of all incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support the conviction. Because evidence must be considered cumulatively, appellate courts are not permitted to use a divide and conquer strategy for evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.
B. The Evidence was Legally Sufficient to Support Both Convictions
1. The Cases are Similar
Nisbetts and Delacruzs cases are similar in a number of ways. In both cases, there was no eyewitness to murder, no confession by the defendant to murder, no body recovered, and no murder weapon found. In both cases, the victim disappeared, never to be seen or heard from again. For each case, the State introduced evidence of the complete absence of any economic or electronic footprint involving the victim or her social security number-no property transactions, bank account activity, utility bills, phone bills, drivers license renewals, vehicle registrations, or the like. In both cases, the victim was in a troubled marital relationship headed for divorce, the victims husband had a history of abusive and violent behavior toward the victim, the day the victim disappeared involved suspicious events, the victims activity or lack of activity on that date was out-of-character and out of line with intentions and goals expressed earlier, and the husband expressed animus about the victim before the victim disappeared and made suspicious and inconsistent statements after her disappearance. In both cases, the husband attributed statements to the victim that the victim did not make (Nisbett making conflicting statements about Vickis departure for the Christmas party and Delacruz impersonating the victim in text messages and online media). In both cases, the estranged husband used an account owned by the victim to pay for something after the victim had disappeared (a bank check in Nisbetts case and a credit card in Delacruzs case). In both cases, the victims car was found. And both cases involved physical evidence that supported a conclusion that the victim was murdered (carpet padding stained with Vickis blood and the hole dug with ashes and burned clothing nearby in Delacruzs back yard).
Although we agree that a sufficiency of the evidence inquiry is highly individualized, we disagree with the court of appealss statement in Delacruzs case that the evidence in the two cases was quantitatively and qualitatively different. While the cases are not identical and each has various strengths and weaknesses in the evidence, we nevertheless conclude that the cases are similar and should have been decided the same way. And because we decide that the correct decision in both cases was to uphold the trial courts judgment, we agree that Delacruzs case was decided correctly while we disagree with the resolution of Nisbetts case.
2. Evidence Showed that the Victims Are Dead
We start with the question of whether the evidence was sufficient to show in each case that the victim was dead. The possibility that a defendant could be convicted of murder when the victim is not even dead has been one motivation for adopting the corpus delicti rule, which requires that a defendants extrajudicial confession be corroborated by some other evidence showing that a crime has been committed. Past cases have sometimes required a showing of corpus delicti outside the extrajudicial confession context, but we have retreated from those cases and have held that any such uses of the corpus delicti rule have been superseded by the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard articulated in Jackson v. Virginia .
Even when the corpus delicti rule applies, the corpus delicti of murder is established if the evidence shows the death of a human being caused by the criminal act of another, and the State is not required to produce and identify the body or remains of the decedent. The States possession of a dead body can make proving the victims death easy, but the victims death can be proved through other evidence, even if that evidence is circumstantial. The notion that the careful and meticulous murderer might escape punishment by destroying or forever concealing the body of his victim is a distasteful one, and the murderers successful disposition of the victims remains should not be rewarded.
And partly for this reason, it need not necessarily be known what caused the victims death. [T]he cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances can support a murder conviction even if the evidence did not prove the method of commission of the offense. Evidence of how a victim died would likely be helpful in proving that the victim is dead (as well proving other elements of murder), but the ultimate question is whether the evidence, when viewed as a whole, is sufficient to establish the victims death.
In the cases before us, neither of the victims bodies were found, but there was a significant amount of circumstantial evidence that each victim was dead. To begin with, each victim failed to make appointments that had been planned. Vicki had made plans to meet a co-worker, attend a Christmas party, and go on a date afterwards. Julie had planned to go to lunch with her aunt and to pick up her cousin from work. None of these planned meetings occurred.
For each victim, a voluntary disappearance would have been out of character and inconsistent with the victims plans and circumstances. People who knew Vicki testified that she was a good mother who would not have abandoned her three children. A police officer also noted that all of Vickis personal effects were still in her bathroom. Julie was well known as a responsible person, she had a child of her own who was very important to her, and she had close relationships with a number of relatives and friends and had contacts with a number of these people on a daily basis. Julie was also a model employee who was never late for work. Julie had seemed excited about a future with her boyfriend, and in fact, wrote a love letter to him the day she disappeared. This was inconsistent with text messages and social media postings occurring later that day that suggested she was breaking up with him.
Family and friends of the victims never heard from them again. In fact, a thorough search of various databases revealed no economic or electronic activity by either of the victims, or any other sign that the victims were alive. Both of the victims cars were recovered, having been abandoned.
As far as anyone could tell, each victim had disappeared from the face of the earth. [I]t is less likely in todays mobile and technological society that a person might vanish and never be heard from again. The absence of economic activity or any contact with family and friends supports a conclusion that the victim is dead. In Vickis case, this absence of activity was over an extended period of time-more than 22 years. In Julies case, the absence of activity was not over as long a period but was nevertheless highly significant, given her history of extensive cell-phone usage.
One possible explanation, besides murder, for such a thorough disappearance under suspicious circumstances is a kidnapping, with the victim being held prisoner for years in a hidden location. There are anecdotes of victims disappearing only to emerge alive later from an extended captivity: e.g., Jaycee Dugard, Amanda Berry, Michelle Knight, and Georgina DeJesus. However, there is evidence that undercuts such an explanation in the cases before us and that supports, instead, the conclusion that Vicki and Julie were both killed. As we shall see in the next section, the evidence strongly points to each defendant as being the cause of the disappearance of his respective victim.
Moreover, there was physical evidence suggesting that each victim had died. In Nisbetts case, Vickis blood had soaked through the carpet and into the carpet padding. That fact suggests that Vicki lost a lot of blood-suggesting that her wounds were fatal. Even though experts testified that they could not say that a fatal amount of blood was found, the evidence also showed that, after Vickis disappearance, her apartment was immaculate. This was contrary to the apartments usual messy condition, and the natural inference to draw is that Nisbett cleaned the apartment thoroughly, wiping up most of the blood.
In Delacruzs case, there was the freshly dug hole in the shed in his back yard-a hole large enough to put a body in. There was no legitimate reason for the hole, and Delacruz lied to his family and the police about it. In addition, there were ashes nearby, as well as burned clothing, and cadaver dogs alerted at the house and on some items in the shed. This suggests that Delacruz burned Julies body in the back yard and at least attempted to dispose of it there.
3. Evidence Strongly Connected Each Defendant to the Respective Victims Disappearance
We now turn to the fact that the evidence strongly connected each defendant to the respective victims disappearance. While motive is not by itself enough to establish guilt of a crime, it is a significant circumstance indicating guilt. Opportunity, when coupled with motive, is not sufficient to prove identity in a murder prosecution but is indicative of guilt. Marital difficulty can establish a motive for murder. Prior behavior by the defendant toward the deceased can also be relevant to a determination of whether the defendant murdered the victim. And inconsistencies in a defendants story can provide evidentiary support for a conviction. And of course, other circumstantial evidence, such as physical evidence or electronic evidence, can link a defendant to the commission of an offense.
In both Nisbett and Delacruzs cases, the defendant and the victim had a troubled marriage and divorce was pending. In both cases, the victim was extremely fearful of the defendant. Vicki expressed her fear of Nisbett to her pastor, while Julie expressed her fear of Delacruz to her supervisor at work. In both cases, the defendant expressed great animus about his wife in remarks before her death. Nisbett talked about killing Vicki, while Delacruz called Julie a big mistake that made his life miserable and used obscenity-laced language to describe her. Nisbett talked about a place where a body could be disposed of where no one would ever find it, while Delacruz posted a message, along with his derogatory remarks about Julie, that he was leaning toward [his] original plan.
In both cases, the defendant was the last person to see the victim alive, and in both cases the defendants behavior on the day the victim disappeared further implicated the defendant in that disappearance. On the day she disappeared, Nisbett argued with Vicki, because he did not want her to go to the Christmas party, and he physically assaulted her, leaving choke marks on her neck. Nisbetts behavior greatly upset Vicki, and at one point, he coerced her to hang up the phone. Despite the fact that he was supposed to be babysitting the children while Vicki attended the party, Nisbett left the children that night with neighbors who were more acquaintances than friends, borrowed the neighbors car, and brought the car back damaged. Nisbett filed a missing persons report, but only after Vickis supervisor stated that she would do so.
Delacruz went over to a neighbors house for the first time in twenty years to tell him that Julie was missing. He did this in the morning, around or shortly after the time Julie was scheduled to pick up her child. Yet he never filed a missing persons report with the police. Even though Delacruz was a video game addict, his video game activity was uncharacteristically silent that day and the day after.
Both defendants made suspicious statements and engaged in other suspicious behavior after their respective wives disappeared. Nisbett called up Tower and hung up when Tower asked what he did with Vicki. He limited his childrens time with their maternal grandmother to, in his words, protect himself. Nisbett showed up twice while investigators searched Vickis apartment and, visibly sweating, appeared to be extremely nervous. He gave various stories about where he thought Vickie would be, claimed to hire a private investigator but apparently did not, and initially denied having a physical altercation with Vicki on the evening of her party. He also claimed he stayed home with the children the entire night that Vicki disappeared, which contradicted his neighbors account that he had left his children with them and borrowed their car.
Delacruz told investigating officers that he first learned that Julie was missing the night of her disappearance, despite his earlier statement to a neighbor that morning. Delacruz also described Julie, her family, and her friends in negative terms that were inconsistent with all of the other information the police had received. Delacruz claimed that he did not have access to Julies social media account even though he did, because he had her phone. He told lies about the hole that had been dug in his back yard.
Physical and electronic evidence also connected each defendant to his respective wifes disappearance. Vickis blood on a wall in her apartment was imprinted with Nisbetts handprint.
Nisbett forged a check after Vickis disappearance. That check was out of sequence numerically, and the checkbook that the check came from was found in Vickis car. Vickis car was seen traveling the evening she disappeared and was later recovered, having been abandoned.
On the night of Julies disappearance, Delacruz had a scratch on his nose that he attributed to his child but that was too deep for a toddler to make. He had Julies phone and credit card on the day of her disappearance and he used both. He used the phone to send text messages and to post online media messages that suggested that Julie was breaking up with her boyfriend and running away. He used the credit card to make purchases, including a video-game playing card that he later activated.
4. Evidence Was Sufficient to Show Each Defendants Culpable Mental State
By its nature, a culpable mental state must generally be inferred from the circumstances. We cannot read an accuseds mind, and absent a confession, we must infer his mental state from his acts, words and conduct. The culpable mental state for murder can be inferred from a defendants motive, his attempts to conceal the body, and implausible explanations to the police. The defendants culpable mental state may also be inferred from the extent of the victims injuries.
Even though we do not know how Vicki died, the evidence shows that she lost a lot of blood. The evidence also shows that, shortly before her disappearance, Nisbett had grabbed Vicki around the neck in a choking motion, which was potentially life threatening. Vicki may have survived that encounter, but a rational jury could view the choking as indicative of Nisbetts mental state. There was also evidence that, in the days preceding her disappearance, Vicki was extremely fearful of Nisbett-suggesting a well-founded fear that he was going to kill her. Moreover, Nisbett had previously made statements that specifically indicated a desire to murder Vicki, especially if she tried to leave him. Vickis filing for divorce and seeing another man supplied Nisbett with motive to kill her-a motive that he had previously articulated-though such a motive would have been evident even without Nisbett saying so. Nisbett also made suspicious and implausible statements to the police. His statement that McDuff killed Vicki could have been seen as an acknowledgment that Vicki was in fact murdered. Nisbett also engaged in extensive efforts to cover up Vickis death, including meticulously cleaning the apartment, using a neighbors car the night of her disappearance (possibly to dispose of her body), isolating his children from family, and attempting to mislead others about what happened to Vicki.
We also do not know how Julie died, but her pending divorce from Delacruz supplied him with a motive to kill her, and Delacruzs numerous online derogatory statements about her also indicated a motive to kill her. Julies statement to her work supervisor further substantiated this motive when she referred to Delacruz saying that if he could not have her, nobody will. Moreover, her statements to her work supervisor that she was in fear for her life, and that if anything ever happened to her, it was him, could be construed by a rational jury as a well-founded fear that Delacruz was going to kill her. A rational jury could also have interpreted Delacruzs admittedly cryptic statement that he was leaning toward [his] original plan as a veiled expression of an intent to kill her. The hole dug in the shed in his back yard was further evidence of such preparations. In addition, Delacruz engaged in an elaborate scheme to impersonate Julie in text messages and online to convey the impression that Julie had run away with another man. The ashes and burned clothing could be construed as an effort to cover up his crime.
IV. CONCLUSION
We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to establish that Nisbett murdered Vicki and that Delacruz murdered Julie. Consequently, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals in Nisbetts case and remand the case to that court to address Nisbetts remaining points of error. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals in Delacruzs case.
One justice was on both panels.
Tower testified that, because they did not have cell phones at this time, Nisbett would have had no way of knowing that Vicki had decided to go straight to the party instead of Towers place.
This particular make of car, a 1969 Nova, required two sets of keys-one key for the ignition, and another key to open the trunk. Nisbett did not have a key to the trunk of the vehicle.
On December 29, 1991, two weeks after Vicki disappeared, Kelly Misfeldt stated that he saw Vicki outside of his apartment complex at around 5:00 p.m., and that he was 99 percent sure that it was her. Misfeldt was looking out from his second-story window, and the woman he observed was approximately thirty-five feet away. There was no artificial lighting in that particular area of the apartment complex. Misfeldt wore glasses, and he was wearing glasses at the time he believed he saw Vicki.
Also, the number 676 can be seen on the front of the checkbook in a photo taken of the contents of the car at the time the car was recovered.
This test is performed by taking a cotton swap or Q-tip, putting a little bit of water on it, and then swabbing the stain very lightly. A drop of the phenolphthalein solution is then added to the mixture, and it if changes color, it is a presumptive positive test for the presence of blood.
Luminol is a highly sensitive blood reagent used to detect latent bloodstain evidence, usually associated in forensic investigations with a clean up subsequent to a bloodletting event. Investigators will typically spray a solution of luminol and the oxidant, and the iron in blood catalyzes the luminescence. This makes trace elements of blood visible to the naked eye in a bluish-green glow, even if someone has cleaned or attempted to remove it.
Vickis parents submitted blood samples for DNA analysis, and a comparison of the parents DNA with these blood stains showed a 99.9999999999 percent probability that the blood came from an offspring of the parents.
Samantha received an unusual text from Julies phone that day referring to her as S.P., a nickname that not many people used.
The lead detective found the phrase my ay bay bay to be significant because Delacruz had used the same phrase in a post to his own Myspace page on February 10, 2010, which read: Chillin with my ay bay bay.
The next longest time was less than two hours, and all other periods lasted only minutes or seconds.
Nisbett v. State , No. 03-14-00402-CR, 2016 WL 7335843 *16, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 13252 *52 (Tex. App.-Austin Dec. 15, 2016) (not designated for publication).
Id. at *9-10, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 13252 at *29-30.
Id. at *9-10, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 13252 at *30.
Id. at *10, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 13252 at *31-34.
Id. at *10-11, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 13252 at *32-33.
Id. at *11-12, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 13252 at *35-38.
Id. at *11-13, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 13252 at *38-44.
Id. at *13-14, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 13252 at *45.
Id. at *13-15, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 13252 at *45-49.
Delacruz v. State , No. 03-15-00302-CR, 2017 WL 1487391, *26-27, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 3563, *83 (Tex. App.-Austin April 21, 2017) (not designated for publication).
Id. at *22, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 3563, at *69-70.
Id. at *22-23, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 3563, at *70-71.
Id. at *22-25, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 3563, at *71-78.
Id. at *22-23, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 3563, at *71.
Id. at *22-23, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 3563, at *71-72.
Id. at *23-25, *26-27, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 3563, at *72-76, *83.
Id. at *25-26, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 3563, at *78-80.
Id. at *26, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 3563, at *82-83.
See id. at *25, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 3563, at *79 (But the State was not required to produce testimony showing that Delacruz admitted to every element of the charged offense.... Accordingly, Stewarts testimony was additional evidence that tended to show that Delacruz committed violent acts against Julie that caused her to bleed and lose consciousness.). See also id. at *21-22, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 3563, at *67-69.
See Nisbett , 2016 WL 7335843, at *9, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 13252, at *29-30 (Moreover, the evidence reflects that [2016 WL 7335843, *9-10, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 13252, *30 ] Vicki was alive and talking on the phone-first to Tower then later to Castleberry-after appellant choked her. Thus, the choking Tower heard about was not a fatal injury.).
Delacruz , 2017 WL 1487391, at *25, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 3563, at *79.
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.075.
Delacruz , 2017 WL 1487391, at *25, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 3563, at *79.
Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 313, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
Id. at 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781.
Id. ; Whatley v. State , 445 S.W.3d 159, 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
Cary v. State , 507 S.W.3d 761, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016).
Morgan v. State , 501 S.W.3d 84, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016).
Carrizales v. State , 414 S.W.3d 737, 742 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (citing Hooper v. State , 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) ).
Hooper , 214 S.W.3d at 13.
Murray v. State , 457 S.W.3d 446, 448 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015).
Salazar v. State , 86 S.W.3d 640, 644 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (The corpus delicti rule guarded against the shocking spectacle and deleterious effect upon the criminal justice system when a murder victim suddenly reappeared, hale and hearty, after his self-confessed murderer had been tried and executed.).
Carrizales , 414 S.W.3d at 742-44 (Mention of the corpus-delicti doctrine in a Jackson sufficiency review when the case does not involve a confession is, at best, just short hand for evidence that the crime has been committed, and, at worst, confusing.).
McDuff v. State , 939 S.W.2d 607, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
See id. (emphasizing that sufficiency of the evidence to prove corpus delicti in a murder case requires considering all of the evidence). See also Belcher v. State , 71 Tex. Crim. 646, 654, 161 S.W. 459, 463-64 (1913) (Outside of the confession or statement of the appellant hereinafter mentioned, and even therewith, the State was under the necessity, by circumstantial evidence very largely, of establishing the identity of this dead body as that of W. R. Belcher, and that the appellant had murdered him. In such cases as this, courts and text-writers all say: The mind seeks to explore every possible source from which any light, however feeble, may be derived. And in such cases the nature of the case in many instances demands a greater latitude in the presentation of the evidence of the circumstances than where a conviction is sought upon direct and positive testimony. ) (citations omitted).
McDuff , 939 S.W.2d at 623 (Baird, J., concurring) (citing Epperly v. Commonwealth , 224 Va. 214, 294 S.E.2d 882, 891 (Va. 1982) ).
Ramos v. State , 407 S.W.3d 265, 271 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).
See McDuff , 939 S.W.2d at 614-15 (Courts op.).
Id. at 623 (Baird, J., concurring).
See id. at 615 (Courts op.).
Hacker v. State , 389 S.W.3d 860, 870-71 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).
Ex parte Weinstein , 421 S.W.3d 656, 668 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
Temple v. State , 390 S.W.3d 341, 360 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).
Goff v. State , 329 Ark. 513, 520, 953 S.W.2d 38, 42 (1997) ; State v. Winfrey , 337 S.W.3d 1, 11 (Mo. 2011).
Garcia v. State , 201 S.W.3d 695, 702-05 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
Temple v. State , 390 S.W.3d 341, 361 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).
Strickler v. Greene , 527 U.S. 263, 293, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999).
In re State ex rel. Weeks , 391 S.W.3d 117, 125 n.36 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) ; Hernandez v. State , 819 S.W.2d 806, 810 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
See Hernandez , supra (Intent may be inferred from acts, words and conduct of accused.).
Weinstein , 421 S.W.3d at 668.
Patrick v. State , 906 S.W.2d 481, 487 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).