Summary
The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, affirmed Alexandro Correa’s conviction for third-degree stalking. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish the requisite mental states, that the State’s abandonment of the “should have known” theory was not an impermissible amendment to the indictment, and that the jury charge properly included the statutory definitions of “intentionally” and “knowingly.”
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that Correa possessed the mental states required for third-degree stalking.
- Whether the trial court erred by permitting the State, after trial had commenced and over Correa's objection, to abandon the indictment's allegation that Correa knew or reasonably should have known that Mendoza would regard his conduct as threatening.
- Whether the trial court erred by including both nature-of-conduct and result-of-conduct language in the statutory definitions of intentionally and knowingly in the jury charge.
Holdings
- The evidence was sufficient to support Correa's conviction for stalking because a rational jury could find that, on more than one occasion and pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct, he knowingly engaged in conduct constituting harassment or conduct he knew Mendoza would regard as threatening bodily injury or death.
- The State did not amend the indictment when it abandoned the "should have known" mental state and proceeded only on the allegation that Correa knew Mendoza would regard his conduct as threatening.
- The trial court did not err by including the statutory nature-of-conduct language in the definitions of intentionally and knowingly because the charged harassment-based means of stalking incorporates an offense whose gravamen is the sending of repeated electronic communications in a manner reasonably likely to produce the prohibited effect.
Key quotations
“When addressing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider whether, after viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (7)
“We use the gravamen of the offense to decide which conduct elements should be included in the culpable mental-state language.” (13)
“The gravamen of the § 42.07(a)(7) offense is the sending of repeated electronic communications in a manner reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend another (nature of conduct).” (14)
Factual background
Correa repeatedly contacted and visited Jami Mendoza at her CrossFit gym after delivering food there, left unsolicited gifts, disrupted a wellness class, and continued contacting her after she communicated professional and personal boundaries and blocked him on Facebook. He later sent Instagram messages stating, "Just letting you know we’re going to die. At least it will be a beautiful death," followed by more than eighty Facebook check-ins at Mendoza's business page and more than twenty attached private messages within approximately twenty-four hours. Mendoza testified that she feared for her safety, contacted police, and barricaded herself inside the gym; Correa admitted many of the contacts and visits but denied intending to make her uncomfortable.
Procedural history
A Travis County jury convicted Correa of third-degree stalking under Texas Penal Code section 42.072. The trial court suspended his sentence and placed him on four years' community supervision. On appeal, Correa challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the State's abandonment of one alleged mental state after trial commenced, and the jury charge's inclusion of both nature-of-conduct and result-of-conduct language. The court of appeals overruled all three issues and affirmed.