## Facts

- A large group of men wearing ski masks and dark clothing entered a home at night and committed a robbery involving a deadly weapon; the occupants (including the complainant and his son) were assaulted during the incident.
- Conald Ray Koontz was charged with aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon based on his participation with the group.
- In a written statement, Koontz admitted he went into the victim’s garage and then entered the house while the robbery was occurring, but he denied personally assaulting anyone or taking any property.
- The State tried the case on a law-of-parties theory, arguing the group’s numbers and coordinated entry overwhelmed the victims and that Koontz’s presence and entry with the group supported an inference that he assisted the robbery.
- Over Koontz’s objection, the trial court admitted evidence of a second, similar robbery carried out in a comparable manner and involving the same group, in which Koontz was again present; Koontz maintained he was only present and not an active participant.
- The jury found Koontz guilty of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and assessed punishment at 32 years’ imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support Koontz’s conviction for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon as a party, where he admitted entering the garage and home with the masked group but denied personally assaulting the victims or taking property.
2. Whether the trial court erred by admitting evidence of a second, similar robbery involving the same group as an extraneous offense on the issue of Koontz’s intent, despite Koontz’s claim that the evidence was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the conviction and the 32-year sentence.
- The evidence was legally sufficient for a rational jury to find Koontz criminally responsible for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon under the law of parties.
- The trial court did not reversibly err in admitting evidence of the second robbery because it was relevant to Koontz’s intent and to rebut his claim of innocent presence.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Texas law of parties (Tex. Penal Code §§ 7.01–7.02), a defendant may be criminally responsible for an offense committed by another if, acting with intent to assist or encourage the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person in committing it.
- Legal sufficiency is reviewed under Jackson v. Virginia: viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the question is whether any rational factfinder could have found each essential element beyond a reasonable doubt.
- “Mere presence” at the scene is not enough standing alone, but presence combined with circumstances such as companionship, conduct, and participation before, during, or after the offense can permit an inference of intentional participation as a party.
- Evidence of an extraneous offense may be admissible for a non-character purpose (such as intent, absence of mistake, or rebutting a defensive theory of innocent presence) when intent is disputed and the extraneous act is similar enough to shed light on the contested mental state; the trial court retains discretion to exclude it if unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value.

## Conclusion

The Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that Koontz’s admitted entry into the garage and home with the masked group during the violent, weapon-involved home robbery allowed the jury to infer he intentionally assisted the offense even if he did not personally strike the victims or take property, and it further held that evidence of a second, similar robbery involving the same group was properly admitted to address intent and counter Koontz’s claim that he was only present.


Koontz v. State, 868 S.W.2d 27 (1993)