## Facts

- Ronnie Ray Dimmer owned an auto shop in Harris County, Texas.
- Eric Cooper, a friend of Dimmer’s, stopped by the shop while Dimmer was upset and looking for money he believed Maurice Anderson had taken.
- Anderson later arrived at the shop on a bicycle. Dimmer confronted Anderson and demanded the return of the money.
- Cooper testified he saw Dimmer “hit” Anderson in the chest. Anderson immediately said he had been stabbed.
- Cooper then saw a small steak knife in Dimmer’s hand, but Cooper did not see the wound at that moment.
- Anderson walked across the street to a liquor store to ask someone to call an ambulance. Cooper left because he did not think the injury was serious.
- An autopsy showed Anderson died from a single knife wound to the chest about four and a half inches deep, which punctured the heart. Anderson had no defensive wounds.
- While in jail, Dimmer spoke with another inmate, Marshall Smith, about their cases. Smith testified Dimmer asked for help “build[ing] a self-defense case” and using the law library.
- Smith testified Dimmer admitted he stabbed Anderson at the shop because he believed Anderson had stolen money from him, and that he stabbed Anderson “in the heart one time.”
- Smith also testified Dimmer said he gathered his belongings and left after the stabbing and made the comment “dead men can’t talk.” Smith reported the statements to authorities and testified he was not receiving a benefit for doing so.
- Dimmer testified Anderson had been at the shop earlier asking for money; Dimmer refused, later noticed money missing, and believed Anderson took it.
- Dimmer claimed that when Anderson returned, Anderson charged at him with a knife, a struggle followed, and Dimmer took the knife away. Dimmer testified he did not realize Anderson had been stabbed and would have stayed to help if he had known Anderson was injured.
- A jury convicted Dimmer of murder, and the trial court sentenced him to 25 years’ imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support Dimmer’s murder conviction, including proof of the required mental state under Texas Penal Code § 19.02.
2. Whether the evidence was factually sufficient (under the then-used Texas standard) in light of Dimmer’s self-defense account and other conflicting testimony.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion under Texas Rule of Evidence 403 by admitting Marshall Smith’s testimony about Dimmer’s jailhouse statements (including references to drug use and “dead men can’t talk”).

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment.
- The evidence was legally sufficient for a rational jury to find Dimmer committed murder and acted with the required intent or knowledge.
- The evidence was factually sufficient; the verdict was not so contrary to the weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or unjust.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Smith’s testimony; its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- On legal-sufficiency review, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and asks whether any rational factfinder could find the offense’s essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A jury may infer intent to kill or intent to cause serious bodily injury from the use of a deadly weapon, the location and depth of the wound (including a deep stab to the chest/heart), and the defendant’s words and conduct before and after the offense.
- Under the then-recognized factual-sufficiency review in Texas criminal cases, an appellate court views the evidence in a neutral light and reverses only if the verdict is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust; credibility choices generally belong to the jury.
- Under Rule 403, relevant evidence may be excluded only if the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value; evidence is not excluded merely because it is damaging.
- A defendant’s admissions to a witness are highly probative on disputed questions such as intent, identity, and whether the defendant’s trial account is believable, and that probative force can justify admission despite negative character implications.

## Conclusion

The court of appeals affirmed Dimmer’s murder conviction because the eyewitness account, medical evidence of a fatal heart-penetrating stab wound, and Smith’s testimony about Dimmer’s admissions allowed a rational jury to find the required mental state and reject Dimmer’s self-defense explanation, and the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting the jailhouse statements under Rule 403.


Dimmer v. State, 2010 WL 86181 (2010)