## Facts

- On November 14, 1986, around 6:00 a.m., Ray Norton shot and killed Bill Bailey and Preston Thomas at Norton’s place of business.
- Norton called police and requested an ambulance; an officer arrived minutes later and found the bodies behind a van loaded with thirty-four new truck tires.
- Both men had been shot in the head at close range with Norton’s .38 caliber revolver.
- An unfired .45 automatic belonging to Thomas was found on the floor near Thomas’s outstretched hand.
- The tires had been kept in a parts room secured by a padlock; the lock had been cut off using an acetylene torch.
- The State’s theory was that Norton had a financial motive tied to loan guarantees he had made on Bailey’s behalf, lured Bailey (and Thomas) to the shop, had them load the tires, and then shot them at close range.
- Norton’s defense was self-defense: he said he encountered two men stealing tires in a darkened warehouse area, was attacked without warning, and fired to protect himself.
- Over a hearsay objection, Bailey’s widow testified about a late-night phone call in which Bailey said he had just talked with Norton and was going to the shop with Thomas to help Norton work.
- The trial court admitted the widow’s testimony with a limiting instruction that the jury could consider it only to show Bailey’s state of mind (his intent/plan) and not for the truth of what was asserted about Norton.
- A jury convicted Norton of Bailey’s murder and assessed punishment at thirty-five years’ imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court err by admitting Bailey’s widow’s testimony about Bailey’s statement from the phone call, over a hearsay objection, as evidence of the victim’s state of mind with a limiting instruction?
2. Did the prosecutor’s jury argument improperly refer to matters outside the record (including remarks about missing fingerprint evidence and the suggestion the .45 was “thrown down” near the body)?
3. Was the evidence legally sufficient to support the murder conviction in light of Norton’s self-defense claim?
4. Was Norton entitled to a directed verdict because the State introduced his allegedly exculpatory statements and purportedly failed to disprove them?
5. Did the trial court improperly admit certain business records for lack of a proper predicate?
6. Did the prosecutor commit reversible error by arguing (or implying) an incorrect rule about the use of deadly force to protect property?

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the judgment and sentence.
- The widow’s testimony about Bailey’s statement was properly admitted for the limited purpose of showing Bailey’s then-existing intent/plan to go to Norton’s shop; the limiting instruction restricted the jury’s use of the evidence.
- The challenged portions of closing argument were either reasonable deductions from the evidence, answers to defense argument, or otherwise not grounds for reversal under preservation and harm rules.
- The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, supported the jury’s finding of guilt and its rejection of self-defense; the physical evidence and the State’s motive theory allowed the jury to disbelieve Norton’s account.
- Norton was not entitled to a directed verdict merely because the State presented his statements; the State could rely on other evidence and surrounding circumstances to show the statements were not true, and the jury could reject them.
- The business records were admitted with a sufficient evidentiary basis (or any defect did not warrant reversal in light of the record as a whole).
- Any complained-of misstatement about deadly force and property did not require reversal given the charge and the overall record.

## Legal Principles

- A statement offered to show a declarant’s then-existing state of mind (such as intent, plan, or design) may be admitted for that limited purpose; a limiting instruction can confine the jury’s use of the statement to that non-hearsay purpose.
- Proper jury argument includes: (1) summation of the evidence, (2) reasonable deductions from the evidence, (3) response to opposing counsel’s argument, and (4) pleas for law enforcement; reversal generally requires preserved error and harm.
- Legal-sufficiency review considers all evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and leaves credibility choices and conflicting inferences to the jury, including when self-defense is raised.
- When the State introduces a defendant’s out-of-court statements that contain self-serving or exculpatory assertions, the State is not conclusively bound by them; the assertions may be rebutted by other evidence or by circumstances inconsistent with the statements.
- Business records may be admitted when a qualified witness establishes they were made at or near the time of the event by someone with knowledge and kept in the regular course of business.
- Claims that jury argument misstated the law are assessed in light of the full record, including whether the court’s written charge correctly stated the law and whether any error was preserved and harmful.

## Conclusion

In *Norton v. State*, the Texarkana Court of Appeals affirmed Norton’s murder conviction for the killing of Bill Bailey, holding that the victim’s statement about his plan to go to Norton’s shop was admissible to show state of mind with a limiting instruction and concluding that Norton’s remaining complaints—including improper jury argument, sufficiency, directed verdict, and evidentiary challenges—did not show reversible error.


Norton v. State, 771 S.W.2d 160 (1989)