Appeal from the 248th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1495747
consists of Justices Boyce, Donovan, and Jewell.
found Shaun Adrian Jackson guilty of evading arrest with a
motor vehicle. See Tex. Penal Code §
38.04(b)(2)(A) (West 2016). On appeal, he acknowledges the
State proved all elements of the charged offense beyond a
reasonable doubt except, he contends, the State did not
present legally sufficient evidence that he was the driver.
We conclude the evidence of appellant's identity as the
driver is legally sufficient and affirm the judgment.
following facts are based on the guilt/innocence phase trial
evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the
evasion and pursuit. Deputy Constable David Vest sat in
his marked patrol car in a school zone on Studewood Street
shortly before 8:00 a.m. on a school day. He saw a small,
blue, hatchback Mazda speed through the school zone. The
windows were not tinted. Vest could see a driver and a
passenger in the front seat. Vest immediately began pursuit
and activated his patrol car's emergency lights, which
automatically activated the car's dashboard video
recorder, also known as a dash cam.
patrol car approached the rear of the Mazda, Vest, using his
speaker, verbally directed the Mazda's driver to pull
over. The Mazda's right turn signal began to flash,
indicating the driver would turn right onto a nearby side
street. However, instead of turning right, the driver
suddenly sped away on Studewood.
sounded his car's siren and followed the Mazda for
several miles on crowded city streets and eventually onto
Interstate 10. The Mazda weaved through traffic at a high
rate of speed, violating several traffic laws as the driver
sped through red lights and drove into oncoming traffic
lanes. During the pursuit, Vest could see that a man was
driving. He also saw a female passenger hop back and forth
between the front seat and the back seat several times.
morning traffic on Interstate 10 forced the Mazda to slow,
allowing Vest to catch up. The Mazda was one lane left of the
patrol car, so Vest moved forward just enough to angle the
patrol car to the left in order to block the Mazda. The
driver's side of the patrol car was near the front part
of the Mazda. The Mazda's driver then, in Vest's
words, "rammed" the middle of the patrol car's
driver's side with the right front area of the Mazda.
Vest could see the Mazda driver's face at the time of the
collision, and he made eye contact with the driver. At trial,
Vest identified appellant as the Mazda's driver. He
testified that he considers himself an above-average
eyewitness due to his police training.
cross-examination, Vest acknowledged the call log for the
incident, which was based in part on Vest's broadcast
statements over his radio as the pursuit occurred, indicated
the Mazda's two occupants were Hispanic, whereas
appellant is African-American and the female occupant is
caucasian. Vest said it is possible he broadcast the wrong
information due to his adrenaline pumping during the pursuit,
but it is also possible the person inputting information into
the call log did so incorrectly.
pursued the Mazda on Interstate 10 for a short time after the
collision. However, he ended the pursuit at 8:03 a.m. for
public safety concerns without stopping the Mazda.
the pursuit. At approximately the same time, local
business owner John Graham was in his office at a
manufacturing facility not far from where Vest ended the
pursuit. Graham testified that a car drove onto the property
at around 7:00 a.m. or 8:00 a.m. Graham investigated and saw
a small, blue, "relatively new" hatchback about
twenty feet away from his office. The car was damaged on the
front passenger side. Graham saw a woman take bags of clothes
and other items out of the backseat. Graham also saw a man
emerge from the driver's seat and walk toward the trunk.
Graham, who was standing near the rear of the car, got a
"good look" at the man as he walked to the trunk.
The man and the woman then ran away from the facility,
leaving the car. Graham called 911 and reported the incident.
trial, Graham identified appellant as the man he saw. He was
confident in his identification for two reasons. First,
Graham was inches away from the man's face as the man
walked to the trunk after exiting the driver's seat.
Second, nothing like that had happened in the twenty-three
years Graham had worked at that facility, a "very
obscure little ...