Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 02-19-2021
Case Style:
Roderick Rydell Minter v. The State of Texas
Case Number: 06-20-00091-CR
Judge: Josh R. Morriss, III
Court: Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
Plaintiff's Attorney: Gary D. Young
Defendant's Attorney:
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.
Description:
Texarkana, Texas - Criminal defense attorney represented Roderick Rydell Minter with a Aggravated Assault charge.
Following a bench trial, Roderick Rydell Minter was found guilty of aggravated assault
with a deadly weapon. After finding a deadly weapon enhancement to be true, the trial court
sentenced Minter to fourteen years’ imprisonment. Minter appeals, maintaining that the
evidence was insufficient to support the guilty verdict and that the trial court’s judgment
included a typographical error. Because (1) sufficient evidence supports the guilty verdict, but
(2) the judgment contains a typographical error, we modify the judgment and affirm it, as
modified.
On the afternoon of June 26, 2018, while Nathaniel Lee McDonald, Minter’s cousin, was
mowing the lawn at Oak Hill Baptist Church using a riding lawnmower, he was shot in the
mouth with a .22 caliber rifle. Minter lived behind the church, and a loaded .22 caliber rifle,
with a sock over the barrel, was later found at his home.
At trial, McDonald testified that he had known Minter “[a]ll his life.” According to
McDonald, Minter was much younger than he was. McDonald said that, while he was mowing
and just before he got shot, he had seen Minter’s aunt, Mildred Battle,1
north of McDonald’s
location, but “running east, back toward [Minter]’s house . . . waiving her hands in the air.”
Minter said that he could not hear what Battle was saying due to the noise coming from the
lawnmower. Right about that time, McDonald hit the flowerbed with the lawnmower. As he
turned his head to see what he had done, the bullet hit him in the right side of his jaw.
McDonald turned around and noticed that Battle had stopped running. McDonald said that his
1Battle lived next door to Minter and was also related to McDonald.
3
jaw dropped, that is, it had become “unhinged” from his body. According to McDonald, after he
was shot, he drove away to avoid getting shot again. A second shot missed.
By the time McDonald had gotten back to the church parking lot, his son had arrived.
Shortly after that, McDonald’s wife contacted the police, and McDonald was transported by
ambulance to the hospital. McDonald said that he did not see Minter shoot him but believed he
had, because “the shot came from [Minter’s] property.”2
He also stated that Minter had been
upset with him, because, a few years ago, McDonald had blown grass shavings on Minter’s
property while he was mowing. On cross-examination, McDonald conceded that it was not
unusual for individuals living in the area to fire rifles or shotguns.
McDonald’s son, Nathaniel McDonald, Jr. (Nathaniel), testified that, on the day of the
incident, he had been outside helping his father change the blades on the mower. On the way
back to his nearby house, Nathaniel saw Minter “going down the trail” toward his aunt Battle’s
house. According to Nathaniel, he could see Minter well, and Minter was carrying a .22 rifle,
which “he carried . . . everywhere.”3
Nathaniel said that by the time he arrived inside the house,
he could hear that McDonald had started mowing. Nathaniel explained, “First I heard a shot, and
then I heard [Minter’s] auntie holler what are you doing, and then I heard a second shot.”
Nathaniel then heard McDonald yell and drive the mower down the road. Nathaniel said that, in
the immediate aftermath of the shooting, only Minter, McDonald, Battle, and he were in the area
2McDonald testified that the gunshots were “coming from the northeast[,]” which was the area in which Minter
lived. In addition, Texas Ranger Stacy McNeal, who investigated the shooting, said that the shots “[m]ost likely”
came “from the north, northeast,” that Minter lived “directly back to the east,” and that his aunt lived “north of the
church.”
3Nathaniel estimated that he had seen Minter with the rifle “a little over an hour” before McDonald was shot, and he
believed the two of them were about 150 yards apart.
4
and that Minter was carrying a rifle. According to Nathaniel, McDonald told him that it was
Minter who had shot him. Nathaniel also testified that no one else could have been the shooter.
In addition, Nathaniel explained that he also had had problems with Minter, stating that
Minter had previously hidden in the bushes and pointed his rifle at Nathaniel. According to
Nathaniel, Minter behaved in this manner several times, though he had no reason to threaten him.
John Warren,4
a nearby neighbor, said that, later, the day of the incident, Minter had
visited Warren’s house, did not have a weapon at that time, and seemed to be in a good mood.
Warren also said that he did not hear any gunshots that day but learned about the shooting “after
the fact.”
Minter’s testimony contradicted much of the above. Minter testified that Nathaniel was
“lying” about seeing Minter running with a rifle, denying that he carried a rifle on that occasion
or ran from the scene. Minter also claimed that he had not previously hidden in the bushes, with
a gun, waiting for Nathaniel. Minter stated that he had heard a person mowing that day but that
it was not McDonald. He also contradicted McDonald’s testimony that Minter had been angry at
him for blowing grass in his yard.
According to Minter, he had not shot, or even been in possession of, a gun on the day of
the incident. On the other hand, McNeal testified that Minter told Deputy Draper, who
transported Minter to jail, that he had been shooting a gun earlier that day. During McNeal’s
interview, however, Minter denied shooting a gun that day. No gunshot residue was found on
4Warren, Minter, the McDonalds, and Battle were all related.
5
Minter’s hands, and no shell casings were found in the area. Minter conceded that he owned two
.22 rifles and some shotguns.5
(1) Sufficient Evidence Supports the Guilty Verdict
Minter contends that the evidence was insufficient to identify him as the person who shot
McDonald. We disagree.
In evaluating legal sufficiency, we review all the evidence in the light most favorable to
the trial court’s judgment to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Williamson v. State, 589 S.W.3d
292, 297 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2019, pet. ref’d) (citing Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912
(Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (plurality op.); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Hartsfield
v. State, 305 S.W.3d 859, 863 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010, pet. ref’d)). In either a bench trial
or a jury trial, legal sufficiency of the evidence is measured by the elements of the offense as
defined by a hypothetically correct jury charge. Matlock v. State, 20 S.W.3d 57, 61 (Tex.
App.—Texarkana 2000, pet. ref’d). The “hypothetically correct” jury charge is “one that
accurately sets out the law, is authorized by the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the
State’s burden of proof or unnecessarily restrict the State’s theories of liability, and adequately
describes the particular offense for which the defendant was tried.” Id. In this case, the State
alleged that on or about June 26, 2018, Minter “did then and there intentionally, knowingly, and
recklessly cause bodily injury to Nathaniel McDonald by shooting him with a firearm, and the
5
In his interview with investigators, Minter said that he had several weapons in his home but that some of them were
not functional.
6
defendant did then and there use or exhibit a deadly weapon, namely a firearm[,] during the
commission of the assault.”
Here, Nathaniel testified that he saw Minter with a .22 rifle a short time before the
shooting took place. Nathaniel stated that Minter often carried a .22 rifle, and Minter admitted
during his interview and at trial that he owned multiple weapons, including two .22 rifles.
During the search of Minter’s house, a loaded .22 rifle was found with a sock over the barrel.
Further, McDonald testified that just before he was shot, he had seen Battle running toward
Minter’s house, waving her hands and yelling. Although McDonald could not hear what Battle
was saying, Nathaniel testified that he had heard Battle yell, “What are you doing?” In addition,
multiple witnesses testified that the shots came from the northeast, that is, the direction of
Minter’s property. Further, although Minter denied having any former confrontations with
McDonald about the way he mowed the church yard, McDonald said that Minter had been
frustrated with him in the past for blowing grass shavings onto Minter’s yard. While one might
find this to be a petty complaint, and certainly not something to warrant such aggressive
behavior, Nathaniel testified that, on more than one occasion and for no reason, Nathaniel had
returned home to find Minter beside a tree or in a bush pointing a rifle at McDonald. Nathaniel
testified that it was not possible that anyone else could have shot at McDonald that day.
Minter claimed that he was at Warren’s house at or around the time McDonald was shot.
Yet, Warren testified that Minter did not come to his home until around six p.m., which would
have given Minter plenty of time to shoot McDonald, get rid of any gunshot residue on his body,
and pick up any shell casings.
7
Minter’s testimony contradicted much of the other evidence presented at trial, and he
even contradicted himself. As the State contends, “Attempts to conceal incriminating evidence,
inconsistent statements, and implausible explanations to the police are probative of wrongful
conduct and are also circumstances of guilt.” See Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45, 50 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2004) (citing Graham v. State, 566 S.W.2d 941, 951 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); United
States v. Cano-Guel, 167 F.3d 900, 905 (5th Cir. 1999)). Moreover, it is within the province of
the fact-finder to judge the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their
testimony, and it may reconcile or resolve conflicts in the testimony, rejecting or accepting such
portions as it sees fit. Thomas v. State, 444 S.W.3d 4, 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). The trial
court, as the fact-finder, was entitled to accept the State’s version of the facts and to reject
Minter’s version. Moore v. State, 804 S.W.2d 165 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no
pet.)
“Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in establishing guilt.” Hooper
v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). In drawing reasonable inferences, the trier of
fact “may use common sense and apply common knowledge, observation, and experience gained
in the ordinary affairs of life.” Duren v. State, 87 S.W.3d 719, 724 (Tex. App.—Texarkana
2002, pet. struck) (citing Manrique v. State, 994 S.W.2d 640, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999)
(Meyers, J., concurring)). It is true that much of the evidence in this case would be considered
circumstantial and, while each piece of evidence, alone, would be insufficient to support a guilty
verdict, when we review all the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s judgment,
we find that the fact-finder could have found the essential elements of the charged offense
8
beyond a reasonable doubt, including that Minter was the shooter. See Williamson, 589 S.W.3d
at 297.
We overrule this point of error.
(2) The Judgment Contains a Typographical Error
Minter also contends that the trial court’s judgment erroneously references a plea of not
true to an enhancement allegation and a finding of true in the judgment, although the indictment
did not include such an enhancement allegation but, instead, contained a deadly-weapon
allegation. Minter contends that the judgment should be reformed to correct the error. We
agree.
In the indictment, the State alleged that Minter committed aggravated assault with a
deadly weapon by “intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly caus[ing] bodily injury to Nathaniel
McDonald by shooting him with a firearm, and that [Minter] did then and there use or exhibit a
deadly weapon, namely a firearm[,] during the commission of the assault.”6
After hearing the
evidence, the trial court orally stated that it believed the State had met its burden of proof beyond
a reasonable doubt and found Minter guilty “as charged in the indictment.” However, the trial
court also orally found “as true the enhancement paragraph alleging the discharge of a firearm or
the use or commission of a firearm during this event.”7
6By statute, a firearm is considered a deadly weapon per se. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 1.07(17)(A).
7At his initial arraignment held on October 16, 2018, Minter was asked only if he desired to plead guilty or not
guilty to the offense as charged in the indictment, to which Minter responded, “Not guilty.” However, just before
trial began, Minter again entered a not guilty plea to the charged offense, but the trial court stated, “It may be a
stretch here but to the allegation that a deadly weapon was used during the commission of the offense, how do you
plead to that, true or not true?” Minter responded, “Not true.”
9
In its written judgment, the trial court (1) made an affirmative deadly-weapon finding—a
firearm,8
(2) stated that Minter pled not true to the first enhancement paragraph, and (3) made a
finding of true to the first enhancement paragraph. Yet, Minter is correct that the inclusion of the
enhancement paragraph language was error.9
This is because Minter’s indictment did not allege
an enhancement paragraph10 but, instead, alleged a deadly-weapon allegation which, according
to the trial court’s judgment, was adequately proven by the State.11
An appellate court has the power to correct and reform the judgment of a trial court to
make the record speak the truth when it has the necessary information to do so or to make any
appropriate order as the law and the nature of the case may require. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2; French
v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Here, the record supports modification of
the judgment regarding Minter’s plea to, and the trial court’s finding on, a non-existent
enhancement paragraph. Accordingly, we sustain Minter’s second point of error and modify the
trial court’s judgment to reflect Minter’s plea to the first enhancement paragraph to be “N/A”
and the trial court’s finding of true on the first enhancement paragraph to be “N/A.”
Outcome: Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect Minter’s plea to the first enhancement paragraph to be “N/A” and the trial court’s finding of true on the first enhancement paragraph to be “N/A.” We affirm the trial court’s judgment, as modified.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: