Jimmie Dean Goostree v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court of Navarro County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-97-109-CR

JIMMIE DEAN GOOSTREE,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the County Court

Navarro County, Texas

Trial Court # 43660

O P I N I O N

In a bench trial, the court convicted the appellant, Jimmie Dean Goostree, of hindering secured creditors and assessed a punishment of 180 days confinement in jail, suspended for one year, and a $500 fine. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 12.21, 32.33 (Vernon 1994). In one point of error, Goostree contends that, absent the erroneously admitted hearsay testimony of the complainant s wife, the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction. We will affirm.

The record indicates that Goostree entered into an owner-financed contract with Michael and Bonny Scott for the purchase of a house located in Dawson, Texas. After Goostree failed to make timely payments on his debt, the Scotts initiated the procedure to cancel the contract and reclaim possession of the house. Upon arrival at the house recently vacated by Goostree, the Scotts discovered that several fixtures were no longer in the house. // Michael Scott filed a complaint against Goostree for the missing items and Goostree was subsequently arrested and convicted for his actions. It is from his conviction for the hindering of a secured creditor that Goostree appeals. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 32.33.

When we review a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we view all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979); Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154, 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Hernandez v. State, 938 S.W.2d 503, 513 (Tex. App. Waco 1997, pet. ref d). In conducting such a review, we must remember that the fact-finder is charged with the duty of judging the credibility of the witnesses, reconciling conflicts in testimony, and accepting or rejecting any or all of the evidence on either side. Chambers v. State, 805 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). If some evidence establishes the accused s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then we may not reverse the judgment on legal insufficiency grounds. Moreno v. State, 755 S.W.2d 866, 867 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988).

A person commits an offense of hindering a secured creditor when, without the consent of the secured creditor, the person, who has signed a security agreement creating a security interest in property, with the intent to hinder the enforcement of the secured party s interest, destroys, removes, conceals, encumbers, or otherwise harms or reduces the value of the property. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 32.33. Goostree contends that, absent the erroneously admitted testimony of Bonny Scott, there is not legally sufficient evidence to support his conviction. According to Goostree, the trial court erred in admitting Scott s testimony as to whether she knew if her husband had given Goostree permission to remove the items from the house because it was hearsay. Goostree argues that Scott s hearsay testimony is the only evidence which proves that Goostree did not have consent to remove the items and that without it the State would not have proved all the elements of the offense with which he was charged. We disagree.

Scott testified that she knew her husband had not consented to Goostree s removal of the items. She testified, in response to a question from Goostree s counsel, that her husband had told her that he had not consented; however, upon further questioning by the State, Scott also testified that she knew her husband had not given Goostree permission to remove the items because her husband became angry when he entered the house and found the items gone. Goostree contends that Scott s testimony regarding her husband s angry reaction is hearsay. This argument is without merit.

Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at trial, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Tex. R. Crim. Evid. 801(d). Scott did not testify as to what her husband said when he became angry, merely that he became angry. From her husband s reaction, Scott deduced that the items had been removed from the house against her husband s wishes. Scott s testimony was therefore properly admitted before the court. See Roberts v. State, 682 S.W.2d 438, 444 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1984, pet. dism d) (testimony as to observations of a person s emotional condition are not hearsay). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that there is legally sufficient evidence to support Goostree s conviction for hindering a secured creditor.

The judgment is affirmed.

BOBBY L. CUMMINGS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Davis,

Justice Cummings, and

Justice Vance

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed October 22, 1997

Do not publish