George Delacruz v. The State of Texas

George De La Cruz sentenced to life in prison

Case Number: 03-15-00302-CR

Judge: Cindy Olson Bourland

Court: TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Mr. M. Scott Taliaferro
The Honorable Margaret M. Moore
The Honorable Stacey M. Soule

Defendant's Attorney:

Ms. Linda Icenhauer-Ramirez

Description: Delacruz and Julie Ann Gonzales had a daughter, L.D., and married young. In
December 2009, shortly after they married, Julie filed for divorce. On March 26, 2010, Julie went
to pick up L.D. from Delacruz’s house and was never seen or heard from again.
Because an initial investigation revealed (1) no evidence of foul play and
(2) messages that had been sent from Julie’s cell phone after she went missing indicating that she
had simply left Texas for Colorado with another man, law enforcement did not conduct a thorough
investigation into her disappearance at the time it was reported. Julie’s family, however, insisted that
she had not voluntarily abandoned her child and continuously urged law enforcement to resume
its investigation.
In May 2010, law enforcement began to investigate Delacruz in connection with
Julie’s disappearance. Following an extensive investigation, Delacruz was arrested and charged with
murdering Julie, although her body was never recovered. Following a two-week trial, a jury found
him guilty and assessed punishment at life imprisonment. This appeal followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we consider
all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether, based on the
evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom, any rational jury could have found the essential
elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19
(1979); Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
The jury is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence and may
believe all, some, or none of a witness’s testimony. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.04; Brooks,
323 S.W.3d at 899. We may not re-evaluate the weight and credibility of the evidence and substitute
our judgment for that of the jury. Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). We
defer to the jury’s resolution of any conflicting inferences from the evidence and presume that it
2
resolved such conflicts in favor of the judgment. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326; Whatley v. State,
445 S.W.3d 159, 165 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
We must determine whether the inferences necessary to support the verdict are
reasonable in light of the cumulative force of all of the evidence, including both direct and
circumstantial evidence. Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). “It is not
necessary that the evidence directly proves the defendant’s guilt; circumstantial evidence is as
probative as direct evidence in establishing the guilt of the actor, and circumstantial evidence alone
can be sufficient to establish guilt.” Carrizales v. State, 414 S.W.3d 737, 742 (Tex. Crim. App.
2013) (citing Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)). Each fact need not point
directly and independently to guilt if the cumulative force of all incriminating circumstances is
sufficient to support the conviction. Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13.
Reversal on evidentiary sufficiency grounds is restricted to “the rare occurrence when
a factfinder does not act rationally.” Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512, 517 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009);
see Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 303 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (reviewing court may not act
as a “thirteenth juror”). The appellate scales are weighted in favor of upholding a trial court’s
judgment of conviction. Winfrey v. State, 323 S.W.3d 875, 879 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
DISCUSSION
In his sole issue, Delacruz challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his
conviction. We must therefore determine whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s
finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Delacruz (1) intentionally or knowingly caused Julie’s death
or (2) intended to cause serious bodily injury and committed an act clearly dangerous to human life
3
that caused Julie’s death. See Tex. Penal Code § 19.02(b)(1), (2). We conclude that the record
supports Delacruz’s conviction.
A. What the evidence shows
Over the course of two weeks, the jury was presented with the State’s evidence, which
included testimony from three dozen witnesses and nearly 150 exhibits. Viewing the record in the
requisite light, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict. It shows that Julie’s
life ended the morning of March 26, which was the last time that Delacruz—or anyone—saw her;
that Delacruz had a motive, plan, and opportunity to kill her; that he concealed and fabricated
evidence; that he provided numerous false and misleading statements to friends, family, and law
enforcement regarding their relationship and her disappearance; that he withheld information from
law enforcement that would have been critical to their investigation; and that he admitted that he
committed a violent act against Julie in his home that left her bloodied and unconscious.
1. Julie meets Delacruz, has L.D., and Julie and Delacruz marry
Delacruz and Julie met during their last year of high school in 2006 and moved into
an apartment together after graduation. In August 2007, Julie became pregnant with L.D. She and
Delacruz married in May 2009. The three then moved in with Delacruz’s mother, Victoria Delacruz,
and his three younger sisters in Victoria’s home in south Austin.
2. Julie was responsible and had many close relationships
Julie had several friends and family members with whom she was close and whom
she would see on a regular basis. Every witness who testified regarding Julie’s character indicated
4
that she was kind, loving, and responsible. Sandra Soto, Julie’s mother, testified that her daughter
was “super sweet, very loving” and had a “very kind, beautiful heart.” She described her as a “very
driven” student and said that she had graduated early and received multiple scholarships to continue
her education.
Julie’s sister, Samantha Petri, testified that she and Julie “hung out every other
weekend,” would get dinner and go to movies together during the week, and “would constantly talk
to each other during the week.” She said that Julie “was very involved in [Petri’s] school life” and
that Julie helped her with her academics. They were “really bonded” and confided in each other
about things going on in their lives. Julie’s cousin, Alyssa Soto, testified that she and Julie “had a
very good relationship” and that Julie “was like a big sister to” her and all of their cousins. She said
they “were always very close, always together.” Natasha Navarro and Amanda Hays both testified
that Julie was their “best friend.” Navarro described Julie as a “go-getter” who “went out of her way
for others.” She testified that Julie “didn’t have a mean bone in her body.” Hays testified that she,
Julie, and Navarro “did everything together” and had remained close friends since sixth grade.
All of Delacruz’s family members who testified also spoke highly of Julie. Victoria,
Delacruz’s mother, testified that she and Julie always remained “close” even when Julie and
Delacruz experienced difficulties in their relationship. She confirmed that Julie was “mature,” was
“reliable about getting a job and going to work,” and valued schooling and education. Delacruz’s
sister, Liliana Delacruz, similarly testified that Julie “was a good . . . kind, smart” person who always
emphasized to her the importance of education. Delacruz’s cousin, Ariel Nunley, testified that Julie
5
was a “nice, loving person, very friendly, very good to get along with.” She described Julie as
“mature” and “responsible.”
3. Julie was a devoted mother
Similarly, every witness who was asked about Julie’s relationship with L.D.
commented on the strength of Julie’s commitment to L.D. Julie’s mother, Sandra Soto, described
Julie as a “very responsible” mother to whom no one was more important than L.D. Julie’s sister,
Samantha Petri, testified that Julie “would constantly spend time with” L.D. and “was just constantly
happy with her.” Julie had told Petri that having a child “was one of the best things that happened
to her.” Julie’s aunt, Dora Soto, testified that L.D. was Julie’s “main focus at all times” and was
“number one in her book.” Alyssa testified that Julie “loved” and “adored” L.D. and described Julie
as “one of the best mothers I’ve ever seen.” Another of Julie’s cousins, Michael Soto, testified that
Julie “was all about L.D.” He said that Julie was “excited to have her first kid” and that “she wanted
to do it right, so she really put forth an effort into it.” Hays similarly testified that L.D. was
“everything” to Julie and that “L.D. came first to her.” Delacruz’s mother, Victoria, described Julie
as “an excellent mom” who “wanted to make sure that L.D. wouldn’t be lacking anything.”
Delacruz’s cousin, Nunley, also confirmed that L.D. was “a main focus” of Julie’s life and that
nothing was more important to Julie than L.D.
The testimony also demonstrated that Julie was especially attentive to L.D.’s health
care needs. L.D. required asthma medication several times daily, which Julie refilled regularly.
Julie’s Aunt Dora testified that Julie “always made sure that [L.D.] went to the doctor on time” and
“always made sure she had her medicine, no matter what.”
6
In order to provide adequate care for L.D., Julie obtained her pharmacy technician’s
license and maintained full-time employment at a Walgreen’s drug store. Sandra testified that Julie
had pursued a career that would enable her to properly care for L.D. Nunley testified that Julie
wanted to become a pharmacy tech “to do something better for her daughter.”
4. Julie’s employers spoke highly of her
Julie’s supervisor at Walgreen’s, Priscilla Verana, testified that Julie was always
punctual and reliable. She described Julie as her “number one pharmacy tech” and stated that she
“depended on [Julie] the most.” She said Julie was “[n]ever late. Never called in. She always
showed up.” Julie’s manager, Mylinda Burrow, similarly testified that Julie was exceptionally
mature and an exemplary employee who was promoted quickly. She described Julie as “very happy,
a happy-go-lucky person” who “got along with everyone.”
Burrow and Verana also testified as to Julie’s devotion to L.D. Burrow testified that
she saw Julie as a “loving mother doting on her child.” Verana confirmed that L.D. was “definitely”
the focus of Julie’s life, that Julie “was always talking about L.D.,” and that “[h]er whole work
schedule revolved around her[.]”
5. Delacruz’s gaming habit and poor treatment of Julie and L.D. causes marital strife
Soon after Julie and Delacruz married, she began to complain to friends and family
of discord in their relationship. The acrimony stemmed primarily from the fact that Delacruz spent
the majority of his time playing video games in lieu of maintaining employment, attending to
domestic duties, or caring for L.D.
7
Several witnesses, including Julie’s and Delacruz’s family members, testified as to
Delacruz’s gaming habit and the problems it caused in the marriage. Julie’s primary complaint
concerned Delacruz’s neglect of L.D. due to his gaming habit. Julie’s Aunt Dora testified that
Delacruz “was always playing video games” and “wasn’t involved with L.D. at all.” Delacruz’s
sister, Liliana, testified that Julie would “get really angry and upset that George was playing” video
games; that Julie would complain to her that when she would leave L.D. with Delacruz, he would
leave her “dirty, unfed, not changed”; and that Julie “was very concerned about that.” Julie’s sister,
Petri, also testified that Julie complained that Delacruz would “constantly play video games all the
day, and that was one of the reasons why he wasn’t taking care of L.D.” She said that Julie would
regularly tell her “that she was worried about leaving L.D. with” Delacruz, especially because she
was concerned that he would not give L.D. her asthma medication.
The jury also heard testimony that Delacruz was abusive and controlling of Julie.
Michael Soto and Dora Soto both testified that Delacruz had been physically and verbally abusive
of her. Dora testified to having seen bruises on Julie’s arms but said that Julie “would just ignore
it or dismiss it.” Petri described an occasion on which Delacruz slapped Julie, after which “she was
shaking because she was really scared.”
Both Michael and Julie’s supervisor, Verana, testified that Delacruz was controlling
toward Julie. Julie’s friend, Hays, testified that Julie was “scared” and felt “controlled” by Delacruz.
Julie expressed concern to Hays for her own safety. Julie’s friend, Navarro, testified that Delacruz
was disrespectful, immature, and “a good faker.” She said that Delacruz “talked down to” Julie and
8
that Julie was “having to work twice as hard” because Delacruz “wasn’t growing up.” Petri also
testified that the marriage caused Julie a great deal of stress.
Dora testified that Julie “wouldn’t like to go home because of the arguments they
would get into” and that Julie began staying with her, Sandra, or Julie’s grandparents because
of those fights. She said that Julie expressed unhappiness and that she “did not want to be
married anymore.”
6. Julie rekindles a past relationship
In October 2009, Julie ran into a man she had dated several years previously,
Aaron Breaux. Julie originally met Breaux when he had worked at a store run by Julie’s family.
Julie’s family members testified that they had discouraged the relationship at the time because
Breaux was several years older than her, and the two had subsequently lost touch. Sandra described
him as a “family friend” and a “great guy.” Julie’s friend, Hays, testified that Julie was “very
excited” and “overjoyed” about seeing him again.
Breaux testified that he and Julie began dating again in mid-November 2009 and that
Julie began occasionally staying at his apartment “two or three months into it.” Sandra described
Breaux and Julie as having a strong connection and being “like-minded.” Julie’s sister, Samantha
Petri, testified that Julie loved Breaux, whom Petri described as “very honest” and a “very caring
person” who loved Julie and L.D. Michael Soto also testified that Breaux and L.D. also had a
positive relationship and that “L.D. loved him.” He said that Breaux “would take her out fishing and
stuff like that.” Breaux bought L.D. a toddler bed, which he kept at his apartment.
9
The testimony also indicated that Julie and her family feared Delacruz’s reaction if
he found out about her involvement with Breaux. Dora testified that Julie was “very happy” to have
Breaux back in her life, but Dora was concerned that Delacruz would find out “[a]nd get upset and
just do something crazy.” Sandra similarly testified that she “wasn’t sure how Delacruz would react
when he would find out” about Julie and Breaux, which “scared [her].” Breaux testified that Julie
would refer to him as her “friend” rather than by his name when with L.D. because Julie feared that
L.D. would use Breaux’s name in front of Delacruz and Delacruz would learn of their relationship.
Breaux said that the avoidance of the use of his name continued until about mid-February 2010,
around which time he heard L.D. saying his name.
7. When Julie and L.D. moved out of Victoria’s house, Delacruz began obsessive behavior toward Julie
In November 2009, Julie and L.D. moved out of Delacruz’s mother’s house and into
Julie’s grandparents’ house in Dripping Springs. Several witnesses testified that Delacruz began
engaging in obsessive behavior toward Julie. Sandra testified that Delacruz was “unstable” and
“hurting really bad from the separation.” He would remark that “[i]f she ever left me, I would kill
myself.” She confirmed that Delacruz told her that “he felt like his world was ending when Julie
Ann left him.” She tried to offer him comfort because she was concerned for his well-being. She
said that although she was sympathetic to him, “he was too focused on Julie. It’s like everything was
about Julie . . . .” She testified that Delacruz “wouldn’t leave Julie alone, and he would just do
different things to try to get her attention,” such as “sending her weird text messages” and going over
to Julie’s house and work “unexpected.”
10
Julie’s supervisors testified that Delacruz harassed Julie at work. Verana testified that
Delacruz “would call [the store] a lot and want to know where [Julie] was.” Burrow testified that
she received multiple complaints on numerous different occasions that Delacruz was “lingering
around” the store, “watching Julie work.” She said that “[h]e was calling numerous times while she
was trying to work, bothering her,” and affecting her productivity. She described him as “trying to
control every little situation. So [Burrow] had to kick him out of the store.”
Michael Soto testified that Delacruz would routinely ask him about Julie, specifically
about whether she was seeing anyone. He said, “[Y]ou could tell that he wanted to know something
about what she was up to.” He testified that Julie usually took someone with her to pick up L.D.
from Delacruz’s house because she didn’t feel comfortable going alone. Dora similarly testified that
when Julie would pick up L.D., Delacruz would “try to do something to get her to stay or get into
the house,” so her family advised her to take someone with her or pick L.D. up in a public place.
8. Julie files for divorce, and Delacruz becomes more aggressive and unstable
Julie filed for divorce on December 16, 2009. Delacruz refused to accept service of
the divorce petition despite Julie’s continual efforts. Several witnesses testified that he adamantly
opposed the divorce. Dora testified that Delacruz was “pissed off at” Julie for seeking a divorce.
Michael testified that Delacruz “didn’t want to go through with it. He didn’t want it to happen.”
Petri testified that Julie had told her that Delacruz refused to agree to the divorce because “he doesn’t
want to let go. He’s obsessed with me.” She said that Julie had described Delacruz as “losing it, that
he would say off-the-wall things, that he was going to hurt himself.” Verana testified that Julie
“wanted out, and he didn’t,” which “was a problem.”
11
Both Dora and Sandra testified regarding Delacruz’s efforts to garner Julie’s attention
and sympathy, including feigning amnesia after allegedly sustaining a head injury, which he later
admitted was false. According to their testimony, Delacruz instructed a doctor to call Julie to come
to the hospital and tend to him, but he pretended not to know Julie’s family or L.D., a ruse he
perpetuated for weeks.
Michael described one occasion in which he and a friend accompanied Julie to collect
her personal belongings from Delacruz’s house because they believed that “he wanted to do
something to her.” She insisted on leaving without all of her things because Delacruz was
“pressuring her” to her go inside and kept “trying to close the door with her in the room.”
On January 10, 2010, Delacruz left a suicide note in L.D.’s diaper bag for Julie to
find, which Julie reported to law enforcement. Concerned for L.D.’s welfare, Julie sought an order
of supervised visitation requiring that a member of Delacruz’s family be present during his periods
of possession. Thereafter, Victoria arranged her work schedule so that her days off of work 1
coincided with Delacruz’s periods of possession.
The record indicates that Julie strictly enforced the possession order and always
promptly picked up L.D. at the end of Delacruz’s visitation. Delacruz’s sister, Liliana, described
Julie as “possessive” of L.D. She recalled that, a week or two before Julie disappeared, Julie texted
Liliana that L.D. needed to be ready to go when Julie picked her up or “she was going to threaten
George to take away custody of L.D.” Dora testified that, a few days before she disappeared, Julie
was upset because L.D. was hungry and had a dirty diaper when she picked her up from Delacruz’s
The trial court in which the divorce was pending issued a possession order that required1 Delacruz to contact Julie or a family member in the event of any “mental health emergency.” 12
house. Petri testified that, shortly before Julie disappeared, Julie expressed concern for L.D.’s health
while L.D. was staying with Delacruz.
9. Delacruz’s online activity reflected devastation, rage, and a plan
Delacruz was active on MySpace and routinely posted messages about his life. On
January 12, two days after drafting his suicide note, he posted a message entitled “Mistakes” shortly
after 1:10 a.m. expressing regret about Julie but a renewed devotion to L.D.:
I think in my life I have really done a lot of mistakes. Including the ones I have recently made also finding love was a big mistake but that mistake gave me [L.D.] I love her so much I’m happy I had that mistake I thank god for that mistake and thank god to give me 1 more try I won’t fail on [L.D.] baby I’m going to give everything to you you’re my priority baby. I’m going to show everybody what I can do I’m going to be successful you’ll see. Really am happy for that one mistake it turned out to be an amazing gift.
On January 22, he posted that he was “cleaning some old memories away.”
The tone of his messages soon became more belligerent. Shortly after midnight on
February 23, he posted, “fuccing hated wen people lie fucc u b*tch.” Around midnight the next day,
Delacruz sent Julie the following email:
I just wanted to tell u thanks for making my life misarable I hate that u have to still lie about shit but I don’t care anymore do whatever but between u and me we r nothing no more I was starting to get along with u but I can’t sorry but not even friends I will still talk to u only cause of [L.D.] and nothing else so fuck off and leave me alone now.
Julie emailed him on February 26, indicating that she did not know what he believed
she was lying about and pleading with him to make L.D. a priority. She remarked that he had been
13
making an effort with L.D. a few weeks earlier but that “now you don’t even care at all.” The next
day, he responded,
Sorry for working and I do care about [L.D.] I miss her and ur the ugly person not me plus I don’t trust u period and u know wat u did wrong sorry but it’s the truth I hate that u always blame me about [L.D.] everything I do u have to trow it in my face but it’s cool I don’t care cause I know wat I have to do and don’t trust me anymore cause I don’t want u too.
That same day, he posted a message entitled “Too Hard To Forget”:
When everything settles down and my fun stops all the shit returns it just don’t go away. It’s just hard to forget about it hate it cause I can’t move on I tried and tried but it’s not doing anything. I just miss the old times. I’m sorry so sorry.
Around midnight on March 7, fewer than three weeks before Julie disappeared,
Delacruz posted a message that read, “the way things r going its leaning toward my original plan.”
The next day, he posted, “wat i know im not a good person a good friend or a good father fuck it i
hate this shit” and described his “[m]ood” as “failure.” He also sent Julie another email that day:
“You r right about everything about me thank you for telling me wat I am if it wasn’t for u I wouldnt
seen it sorry that I can’t help and u have to finish stuff I don’t do it u wanted it so be it finish wat u
started.” On March 18, he posted, “hate wen people lie i don’t understand why they cant say the
truth” and described his “[m]ood” as “aggravated.”
14
10. Julie makes plans for the future
Meanwhile, Julie had begun making plans for her and L.D.’s future. She and Breaux
had discussed marriage and having children together. The two had found an apartment about which
Julie had expressed excitement to various friends and family members.
Several witnesses testified as to the strength of Julie and Breaux’s relationship and
their commitment to each other. Breaux’s roommate, Joshua Dean, testified to seeing papers at
Breaux’s apartment in which he and Julie had itemized information such as their incomes,
expenditures, and L.D.’s schedule. He said that Julie and Breaux “both seemed real excited about
getting together, especially after what she had just been through. So they were looking to moving
forward.” Sandra also testified that they had made plans for the future, including moving in together.
Petri similarly testified that Julie and Breaux would regularly discuss plans such as getting an
apartment that would have enough space for L.D. to have “a bunch of toys and a dollhouse.”
Julie had also purchased a gold Impala shortly before she disappeared of which
several witnesses testified she was proud. Dora testified that Julie “was so excited because she . . .
got her own car on her own.” Alyssa testified that Julie was “so excited” about her new car and had
saved her money to buy it. Frances Baggett, the manager of the dealership where Julie bought her
car, testified that Julie was “excited about starting her new life, very excited about getting into this
new little vehicle and was, again, set on a new course, from what she was telling me, in her life.”
Julie’s manager, Burrow, testified that, shortly before she disappeared, Julie had told
her that she “felt like she was getting her life together.” Dora testified that Julie “had the support
15
of [her] whole family” and “was doing well.” Michael testified that Julie had a new job she loved
and a new car and said that “it was like she was starting her life with her daughter.”
Several witnesses testified that the only stress in Julie’s life was Delacruz. Petri
confirmed that the marriage was “causing [Julie] to be under a great deal of stress because of”
Delacruz. Sandra testified that Julie had no animosity with any friends, co-workers, or family “other
than [Delacruz].” Michael similarly testified that Julie had no other problems in her life other than
“getting away from [Delacruz].”
11. Julie feared Delacruz
Julie expressed fear about Delacruz after she left him and suspected he might harm
her. Sandra testified that, after Julie left Delacruz, Julie told her that “she felt [Delacruz] was up to
something.” Petri testified that the last time she spoke with Julie, Julie kept telling her “that she had
a bad feeling, and she kept saying that over and over.”
Burrow testified that, after Julie initiated the divorce, she told Burrow that she
“fear[ed] for [her] life.” Julie said that Delacruz had told her that if “he cannot have her or L.D.,
nobody will.” Burrow further testified that Delacruz would follow Julie while she was driving. She
described one such occasion that occurred about a week or two before Julie went missing when Julie
called Burrow and said, “He’s right behind me. I don’t know what to do. I don’t want to get out of
my car. I’m just driving around.” Julie told Burrow that “if anything ever happened to her it
was him.”
16
12. The hours preceding Julie’s disappearance
On Thursday, March 25, the day before she went missing, Julie was scheduled to pick
up L.D. from Delacruz’s house pursuant to the possession order, but Delacruz had called her to
request that L.D. stay an extra night with him. Delacruz’s mother, Victoria, had been off of work
Thursday, but was scheduled to work the following day, March 26. Julie’s cousin, Michael Soto,
had planned to accompany Julie to pick up L.D. on Thursday, but was unable to do so on Friday due
to his work schedule. On Friday, Delacruz’s sisters were at school all day. Julie agreed to the
extension, despite her mother’s and her own misgivings, because she was happy that Delacruz was
making an effort to spend more time with L.D.
Julie’s cousin, Michael, testified that Julie picked him up from work around 5:00 p.m.
on Thursday, March 25, and that “[e]verything was normal. We were just talking, laughing, joking
around, having a good time.” She told him that she was excited about his first son being born and
had planned to get him a gift that weekend for his upcoming baby shower, which she planned to
attend. They also made plans to get together the next day, March 26. Julie told him she would pick
him up from work around 5:00 p.m. again, and they “were going to hang out after that.”
The evening of Thursday, March 25, Julie stayed with Breaux at his apartment, a short
distance from Delacruz’s house. The two went to dinner with Julie’s friend, Hays. Hays testified
that she had not yet met Breaux, and Julie had wanted her “opinion and approval” of him. Hays said
that, at dinner, Julie and Breaux discussed looking for apartments together, marriage, and having
children. Julie’s supervisor, Burrow, testified that Julie had mentioned the dinner to her and that
17
Julie was excited about it and said she would tell Burrow about it at work on Monday. Breaux
testified that he and Julie watched a movie at his apartment that night.
The following morning, Friday, March 26, Breaux left for work at approximately
6:00 a.m. Julie had asked him to take the day off of work since she had the day off, but he was
unable to. Breaux’s roommate testified that he heard Julie getting ready around 8:30 a.m. and that
she was gone by the time he got up at 9:00 a.m.
Julie had left a three-page, handwritten love letter on Breaux’s pillow that morning.
In it, she described her recent time with him as “the happiest” and said that their “happiest days
haven’t come yet . . . like the day we get married and have our little boy (yes boy I want a boy) and
many more.” She explained that she was “not freaked out anymore” to get remarried and was not
“afraid of either one of us changing.” She told him he made her “feel special and loved.” She
expressed enthusiasm about moving in together in August into a certain apartment complex they had
visited and said she “[couldn’t] wait. Waking up together every morning. Making dinner together
or for each other, having chocolate chip or blueberry pancakes with powdered sugar even hopefully
having chocolate fondue again.”
Sandra testified that Delacruz generally kept L.D. Tuesday through Thursday and that
Julie would pick her up from his house after work on Thursday. Because Julie was afraid of
Delacruz, Sandra would call her to ensure she was safe after she picked L.D. up. Sandra testified
that, on this occasion, Julie told her that she had agreed to let Delacruz keep L.D. until Friday
morning because he had told Julie that “he really wanted to spend time with L.D.,” which Julie had
encouraged. Sandra said she was dubious and indicated to Julie that it “just doesn’t sound right.
18
Something is going on.” She testified that she and Julie had “let [their] guard down” and that Julie
had gone alone to pick up L.D. Friday morning.
13. No one is able to see or speak to Julie
On Friday, March 26, Julie’s friends and family knew something was amiss when no
one was able to reach her directly. Dora testified that Julie had planned to visit her that day because
Julie had the day off. Julie had indicated that she “had some business at the courthouse” and then
was going to stop by Dora’s house for lunch or go see her at work afterward. When Dora did not
hear from her, she was “immediately concerned because that was not her norm.” She continued to
try to reach Julie all day without success.
Several of Julie’s other friends and family members tried contacting her beginning
the morning of March 26 and throughout the following days. Julie never answered or returned their
calls, which either went to voicemail after ringing, were diverted to voicemail after one or two rings,
or went directly to voicemail as though the phone were turned off. Concerned, the family gathered
at Dora’s house the following evening, March 27. They determined that the last any of them had
seen Julie or heard her voice was the evening of March 25 and that she had been at Breaux’s until
Friday morning when she left to pick up L.D. from Delacruz’s house.
Julie’s cousin, Michael Soto, testified that “everybody was already freaking out trying
to figure out where she was” because “no one had heard from her” and it “wasn’t like Julie just not
to talk to anybody.” He stated that he and his mother went by Delacruz’s house that evening because
“that was the last place we knew she went that anybody heard from her” and that they didn’t see any
sign of her. He “knew something was wrong” because they “talked every day. . . . It could have been
19
3:00 in the morning” and she would answer “[n]o matter what.” Petri testified that Julie did not
contact her at all on March 26, which was “unusual.” That caused her concern, especially when she
discovered that Julie had not communicated with anyone in the family because “every day she would
constantly talk to someone in the family.” She said that everyone was “in shock about everything
that was happening” and was “consoling each other” while still trying to reach Julie.
Several other witnesses provided similar testimony. Sandra testified that Julie “was
always in contact” with friends and family and wasn’t “the type to run away or take off without
telling somebody something.” She indicated that Julie had never disappeared before. Dora
confirmed that “Julie was always on the grid, so to speak.” Julie’s best friends, Hays and Navarro,
both testified that they spoke to Julie regularly but that Julie didn’t answer or return their repeated
calls on March 26 and March 27, which eventually began going directly to voicemail. They both
testified that such behavior was wholly out of character for Julie and alerted them that something was
wrong. Julie’s cousin, Alyssa Soto, and Delacruz’s cousin, Nunley, also testified that they had tried
to call Julie repeatedly without success.
That Monday, March 29, Julie was scheduled to work and did not show up. Julie’s
manager, Burrow, testified that she called Julie but that her call went directly to voicemail. She said
that not showing up for work or answering her phone calls was “out of character” for Julie. Her
supervisor, Verana, similarly testified that she “was worried about [Julie] because that was
unlike her.”
20
14. Uncharacteristic texts sent from Julie’s phone and posts made to Julie’s MySpace account that weekend
Although no one had seen or been able to speak to Julie since the night of March 25,
friends and family received texts from her phone beginning the morning of March 26 indicating that
she was leaving Breaux and had left Austin for Colorado to stay with another man no one had
heard of.
Breaux testified that he called Julie repeatedly beginning at approximately 9:00 a.m.
on Friday, March 26 but was unable to reach her. Around 2:00 p.m., he received a text from her
phone “along the lines of, I can’t do this anymore . . . like she was breaking up,” which “shocked”
him, particularly in light of the love letter she had left him that morning. He testified that he “had
a gut feeling that something was wrong.” He “felt like somebody else had her phone,” so he sent her
a text asking her to tell him his middle name—which he said was “something only she would
know”—to which he received a response saying, “I don’t feel like playing games.” He tried calling
her phone several more times, but his calls were unanswered.
Julie’s sister, Petri, similarly testified that Julie never answered her calls that weekend
and that she would instead receive text messages from Julie’s phone. She described one text as
indicating “that the family should stop worrying about her and that we should leave her alone.”
Julie’s cousin, Alyssa Soto, received texts from Julie’s phone on the afternoon of
March 26 saying “she wanted to be away, that she was very sad.” She testified that the messages she
received were “just rambling . . . it wasn’t Julie. It wasn’t her personality. If there was a problem,
we would know.” She texted Julie to come home and see her. She said they had never had an
21
exchange like that. She described the messages as “completely out of character,” noting that they
“weren’t even spelled correctly,” and that she “just knew that it wasn’t” Julie.
Julie’s friend, Hays, also testified that she received a text from Julie’s phone on
March 26 saying that she had left Texas but planned to return. She indicated that she had met
someone named “James,” who she had worked with and who was a web designer building a house
in Colorado. Hays confirmed that Julie had never previously mentioned such a person and testified
that the texts “did not sound like her.”
Julie’s friend, Navarro, testified that, immediately after she had tried calling Julie on
March 27, she received several texts from Julie’s phone. The texts indicated that she had “met a
guy” who lived in Colorado and that she was “leaving with him for the weekend” and told Navarro
not to tell anyone. Another text stated, “I didn’t love [Breaux]. I thought I did,” which Navarro
testified was “something Julie would never say. That sounds like something [Delacruz] would say.”
Julie never answered Navarro’s repeated calls and instead kept texting her about not wanting to talk,
which Navarro testified Julie had never done. Navarro further testified that the text exchange “isn’t
Julie at all . . . because Julie would never leave [L.D.]” Sandra testified that “she knew that wasn’t
Julie. The way that that person was sending out those messages, that’s not Julie.” Michael
confirmed that Julie had never expressed an interest in running away from everything.
Over the course of March 26 and March 27, postings were made on Julie’s MySpace
account that similarly indicated that she had left Austin. At 12:29 p.m. on March 26, a message was
posted to her account that read, “going away hate all this bs want to run away[.]” At 7:06 p.m., a
message was posted entitled, “im not the same”:
22
Everything is so hard I hate hurting people I love I’m with the one I loved and I’m with the other one that i love. I hate how things turned out I just wish I never met them. I’m here miles and miles away from everybody hopefully I will find myself in these few days. He better show me a good time here and make me forget about everything in Austin. I don’t want to go back and tell him I screwed up I’m so afraid but I’ll see what happens.
On March 27 at 1:57 a.m., another message was posted to her account that read,
“really happy for leaving austin I love this place and i miss my ay bay bay.” She indicated that her
“[m]ood” was “amused.” A message posted at 11:01 a.m. read, “cant decide what to eat for
breakfast” and indicated that her “[m]ood” was “hungry.” At 12:38 p.m., a post read, “im really hurt
right now I don’t know if this heart can take it anymore” and indicated that her “[m]ood” was “heart
broken” with a smiley-face emoji. And at 9:40 p.m., a final post read, “Just wanted to say im ok and
that people shouldnt worry about me and to stop bothering me i want to enjoy my time.” That post
indicated that her “mood” was “adventurous.” All of the messages indicated that they were posted
“from Mobile.”
Multiple witnesses testified that the posts caused immediate concern because they,
too, were out of character for Julie. Petri confirmed that the postings were surprising and concerning
to her because they did not “sound like the Julie” she had known all her life. She apprised her mother
of the posts, which caused her mother to became “very concerned.” She said that Julie had never
talked about “running away from everything” and “leaving everything behind.”
Hays testified that, after seeing the posts, she knew “something was really wrong and
I needed to talk to her” because Julie had been so happy the night before, and it was unlike her to
swing from happy to sad. Navarro testified that Julie “wasn’t really into social media” and was
23
rarely on MySpace. She said Julie was not one to post messages to social media to garner attention.
She testified that she did not believe that Julie would “post this whole new” self on MySpace
because social media “wasn’t something Julie does.” Navarro further testified that Julie was very
in love with Breaux. A few days prior to her disappearance, Julie had described to Navarro in detail
a two-bedroom apartment in Oak Hill that she and Breaux were going to get, which Julie had
described as “so exciting . . . for us and L.D.” Thus, Navarro did not understand the texts she
received on March 26 about leaving for Colorado with a man Julie had never mentioned, especially
without L.D.
15. Julie’s family gathers at Dora’s house Saturday night and files a missing-persons report
On the evening of March 27, Julie’s friends and family gathered at Dora’s house and
confirmed that no one had been able to reach her. They also confirmed that none of Julie’s personal
belongings had been moved or removed from Breaux’s apartment or her grandparents’ house.
Dora called the police to make a missing-persons report. Officer Jason Day of the
Austin Police Department (APD) responded to the call. Officer Day testified that the Sotos reported
that several people had been trying to get in contact with Julie but that none had been “able to get
in any direct contact with her.” They explained that postings had been made to Julie’s social-media
accounts, but that the postings were out of character for her and “didn’t appear to be in her tone or
her voice.” Dora informed him that the last she knew of Julie’s whereabouts was that she was
supposed to pick up L.D. from Delacruz’s house the previous day and that no one had seen or spoken
24
to her since then. She told Officer Day that this was “not her normal behavior” and expressed
concern that Delacruz may have harmed Julie.
Day searched Delacruz’s name in APD’s database, which revealed his suicide attempt
but no prior criminal activity. Day testified that the postings indicated that Julie “might have left
voluntarily,” so he decided not to contact Delacruz and terminated his investigation. He testified that
if he had received other information that indicated that Julie was in immediate danger, he might have
forwarded the information to a detective.
16. Michael confronts Delacruz at Delacruz’s house Saturday night
Several witnesses testified that, later that night Michael Soto went to confront
Delacruz at his house. Michael testified, “I was honestly there to take his life because I knew he did
something.” When he arrived, Delacruz was in the backyard with some of his friends and cousins.
He said “everyone stood up” when he entered the backyard, but Delacruz was “hesitant about
approaching” him. He said Delacruz “wouldn’t come out of the dark” toward the security light near
where Michael was standing. Michael testified that, although Delacruz “was in the shadows,”
Michael was nevertheless able to observe scratches “on both sides of the bridge of his nose and kind
of near his eyes.” Michael said they only had a “quick conversation” and then he left.
17. Delacruz’s 911 call Saturday night
At around 9:00 p.m. that night, Delacruz and Victoria called 911 to report that Julie
had not yet picked up L.D. Delacruz indicated to the 911 call taker that he wanted to ensure that he
would not be found in violation of the custody order. He stated that Julie had come to his house
25
Friday morning, asked him to keep L.D. for the weekend, and indicated to him that “she would rather
the child be with him instead of leaving the child with someone else.” He said that Julie had posted
messages to MySpace on Friday and Saturday stating that she was leaving Austin and running away.
18. Julie’s car is found at a Walgreen’s near Delacruz’s house Sunday morning
The following morning, Sunday, March 28, Dora spotted Julie’s car at a Walgreen’s
less than half a mile from Delacruz’s house, which was not the Walgreen’s where she worked. She
searched the store for Julie and showed the cashier a picture of her, but was unable to find her. She
first notified her family that she had found Julie’s car and then called the police. Detective James
Scott of the APD missing-persons unit responded to the call. He testified that he did not search the
car at that time because he believed there was insufficient evidence to justify a search.
The next day, Monday, March 29, Dora contacted the car dealership, who sent an
employee to unlock the car. She also contacted the police to supervise. In the back seat was L.D.’s
asthma medication, which L.D. took several times daily and which Julie refilled frequently. The
medication paperwork indicated that it had been picked up on March 22, three days before Julie was
last seen by friends and family on March 25.
The Walgreen’s cashier who had been working the night that Julie’s car was dropped
off testified that sometime between 10:00 p.m. and 1:30 a.m., a woman came into the store, indicated
to him that she was having car trouble, and asked if she could leave her car in the parking lot
overnight until she could have someone look at it, to which he agreed. However, he saw her only
briefly and was unable to identify the woman from a series of photographs the police collected from
store surveillance during that period. Julie’s car was eventually towed back to the dealership. The
26
dealership manager, Baggett, testified that the car was fully operational when it arrived at
the dealership.
19. Law enforcement’s first interview with Delacruz Sunday morning
On Sunday, March 28, after responding to Dora’s report about finding Julie’s car,
Officer John Brooks and two other APD officers went to Delacruz’s house to interview him as the
last person who had seen Julie. Officer Brooks testified that Delacruz informed him that he had last
seen Julie around 10:30 or 11:00 a.m. on Friday, March 26. He told Brooks that Julie had asked him
to keep L.D. for the weekend “because she had some things to take care of and wouldn’t tell him
what those things were.” He reported that Julie “was acting strange.”
The officers checked the house to confirm that Julie was not there, including two
structures in the backyard—a shed and a playhouse. Brooks testified that the shed “had a large plank
cut out in the middle of it. It was freshly cut. There was sawdust. We lifted that and looked
underneath, and there was a trench dug in to the dirt underneath and the shed that looked recently
dug.” He testified that the “[f]loor almost gave way on” one of the officers when he walked in. The
trench was approximately five feet wide, five feet long, and two feet deep. Brooks testified that “[i]t
just looked very out of place. . . . I couldn’t come up with a logical reason why that would be there.”
Delacruz told them that “someone else dug it for plumbing when they were going to turn it into
an apartment.”
Officer Brooks also observed fingernail scratches on the side of Delacruz’s nose.
Brooks testified that he did not inquire about the scratches because Brooks had attributed them to
L.D. Delacruz’s sister, Liliana, also testified that she observed the scratches when Delacruz picked
27
her up from school Friday afternoon. Sandra testified that she noticed them when she picked up L.D.
from Delacruz’s house on Sunday. She said that Delacruz had informed her that he had received
them while “wrestling” with L.D., but she believed they were too deep to have been inflicted by a
toddler. That testimony was consistent with Michael’s testimony that the scratches were visible even
in the dark on Saturday night.
20. Delacruz’s subsequent conduct
Officer Brooks testified that, after he questioned Delacruz, he received two phone
calls from Sandra later that afternoon reporting that Delacruz had called her twice that day to see if
police were investigating him. The next day, Monday, March 29, Delacruz signed the waiver of
service for Julie’s divorce petition after months of refusing to do so. About a week later, on April
6, Delacruz began a new job doing night security after months of unemployment.
Delacruz also began posting messages to MySpace regarding Julie’s disappearance.
On March 28, the day Brooks had questioned him, he posted “thing just gets more and more weird
I hope everything turns out” and “another day and nothing yet but I think we r making progress[.]”
Over the course of the next several weeks, he posted messages about Julie’s disappearance. At 3:13
a.m. on April 13, he posted a message entitled “Life”:
this past few weeks I been thinking a lot and found out that people are not perfect and that everyone has problems. Right now im just waiting for something from my ex i hope everything turns out ok. knowing things has gotten bad 1 thing came out ok and that is that my baby is with me and she is ok and if my ex doesnt come back its all good ill be the best dad for my baby and ill show her all the love she deserves. Just mad that i cant believe a mom will do that abanded a child like that but all well no 1 is perfect i think. Well i hope everything for the best and that god does things for a reason.
28
Later that day, he posted, “cant think today i want her to come back for L.D. . . i hope she shows up
soon cause i hate this sh*t but we will see what happens.”
21. Delacruz’s two subsequent interviews with law enforcement
Detective Scott testified that he interviewed Delacruz at the police station on April 6
and again on April 28. During his interviews, Delacruz made numerous false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose several facts that Detective Scott testified would have been “red
flags” that would have raised suspicion regarding Delacruz’s involvement in Julie’s disappearance.
a. April 6 interview
Delacruz told Detective Scott that Julie was supposed to pick up L.D. Thursday night
but that he had requested to keep her one more night. Julie agreed and was going to pick L.D. up
Friday morning. He said Julie arrived at his house around 10:30 or 11:00 a.m. on Friday. He said
that she came “in on a very weird-looking way” and that his “first instinct was probably she was on
drugs . . . .” He described her as “thinking a lot or she wasn’t focused.”
Delacruz said that she asked him to keep L.D. “for at least the weekend” because she
had “stuff to do.” He said that she told him, “I just want you to have her because you do that and it’s
better off with you than with someone else.” She refused to specify whether it would be Saturday
or Sunday but said she would let him know. He said he was concerned she was trying to trick him
into keeping L.D. so she could contact the police about him keeping her during her period
of possession.
29
He said that normally when Julie picked up L.D., Julie would be really excited to see
her, but that day, “they played like for a little bit and then, ‘Okay, well mommy gots to go to work,’”
and then she left. He said that he didn’t see whether anyone was waiting for her in the car and that
that was the last contact he had with her. He told Detective Scott “supposedly she went missing . . .
Saturday. That’s when I actually started texting and all that.” He said that Sandra called Victoria
Saturday and told her Julie was missing, which was the first he knew of her disappearance. He said
he “thought everything was okay because Friday everything went good . . . that’s when Saturday I
started uh, talking to my neighbor, see what they saw.” However, he also said that when he and L.D.
were leaving his house Friday morning, his neighbor, Jesse Corpus, Jr., said he had just seen a man
walk up to Delacruz’s house and then leave in Julie’s car. Corpus told him, “Well I thought that was
you in the car,” which Delacruz denied.
Detective Scott asked Delacruz if he had killed Julie, which Delacruz denied.
Delacruz pointed to the messages posted to her MySpace account after she went missing and
speculated that she had simply run away “just to get away from her problems.” He then commented
on her “weird friends” and stated that “maybe someone like stole her or made her think something
and ran off with her.” He then speculated that Julie’s family was involved in her disappearance. He
suggested that “the family knows something that they don’t want to give up.” He said that Julie’s
relationship with Sandra was volatile and suggested that Sandra may have misled Detective Scott
about how close she and Julie were. Delacruz indicated that he “had to protect her” from Sandra.
He indicated that Sandra likes “drama” and that she and her family had been harassing Delacruz.
30
Delacruz then complained that Julie’s family was driving around his neighborhood “constantly . . .
and they just like drive slow and just look at us” and asked if he could file a report on them.
Detective Scott asked Delacruz about Hays and Navarro, and Delacruz said that Julie
was friends with them but that they had “problems.” He described discord in their friendships.
He said that he had a “suspicion [Navarro] knows something that she doesn’t want to say.”
Detective Scott asked Delacruz whether he knew about Breaux. Delacruz indicated that he had
known Julie “had a boyfriend,” but said that he didn’t find out who it was until March 27, the day
after Julie went missing. He said that his cousin, Nunley, had told him about Breaux on MySpace
and showed him a picture of him and Julie. He asked Scott how long they had been dating, and Scott
declined to provide him that information. He told Scott that he and Julie had been “intimate” a
couple of times since they separated.
He then suggested that her friends knew where she was and were probably keeping
Julie apprised of happenings concerning her disappearance, including the family’s efforts to find her,
which might make Julie “afraid of coming back” because she would “get a lot of heat from
everybody.” He also suggested that she would not want her friends and family to know about the
“third guy” who was not her husband or new boyfriend.
Delacruz then asked if there were any “leads.” Detective Scott told him that he had
no reason to suspect him of foul play. Scott suggested to Delacruz that he attributed Julie’s
disappearance to a new romantic interest and an acrimonious relationship with her mother and
informed him that he was terminating his investigation.
31
b. April 28 interview
On April 8, a charge was made to Julie’s credit card from Best Buy. Detective
David Gann of the APD missing-persons unit testified that he obtained surveillance video from the
store to determine if Julie had been in the store. He showed Julie’s family members the video, who
indicated that they did not see Julie in the video.
Detective Scott requested another interview with Delacruz, which was conducted on
April 28. Scott began by having Delacruz review the Best Buy surveillance tape to determine if he
could identify Julie in it. Delacruz identified a woman he said might be Julie though he could
not confirm.2
Scott then questioned Delacruz again about the last time he saw Julie, and Delacruz
once more described her as unfocused and “spaced out” when she came to his house to pick up L.D.
He emphasized that she did not appear to be excited to see L.D. unlike every other time that she had
picked her up. He said she did not look “scared,” but looked like there was “something that [she]
was thinking a lot about . . . . like, you know, ‘Should I do this, should I do that?’”
Delacruz said that he had tried calling her cell phone after she left, but that his calls
would go directly to a message indicating that the voicemail had not been set up. He denied having
access to her MySpace account but indicated that he had sent her messages. Scott asked Delacruz
if Julie had any hobbies, and he responded that Julie would spend time at a “place called the hooker
bar” where she liked to smoke “to get mellowed out.” He said she also “used to go [play] pool at
Police eventually determined that the charge was simply a recurring automatic withdrawal2 for a protection plan for an iPhone Julie had purchased. Delacruz later told a neighbor, Karen Ozment, that law enforcement had informed him that a woman had been using Julie’s credit card. 32
Slick Willie’s.” He said she would go out with her friends without him and would “take[] off
because she had the car.” He said she tried to “control” him. He stated that they had “verbal fights.
Never physical,” but added that “she pushed [him] once.”
When asked to describe their separation, Delacruz told Scott that Julie “just said that
she fell out of love. That’s the only explanation she gave me.” He said he “tried to figure out why”
and “tried to work things out” and had suggested marriage counseling. But “she just out of nowhere
popped the question, ‘Well, I want a divorce.’ After we’ve been married five, six months.” He
asked why, and she told him she did not love him anymore. Delacruz said when he tried to talk to
her about it, she would “get[] mad” and refuse. He did not mention his refusal to participate in the
divorce proceeding or his aggressive and unstable behavior toward her. He said that Julie had been
“rushing the divorce process” and wanted him to “hand in the papers real fast,” but that he did not
have the time or money to comply. He attributed her sense of urgency to her wanting government
assistance for housing.
Delacruz stated that he did not like Julie’s family because of “the way they treat her.”
He again suggested that they may have been responsible for Julie’s disappearance. Specifically, he
detailed a discordant relationship between Julie and Sandra. He explained that Sandra would say
“[h]urtful things” to Julie and “always make her feel like crap” and that she would make Julie cry.
He described instances of physical abuse. He said Julie and Sandra had “I’m thinkin’ a fight before
she disappeared, or she ran off.” Scott asked him if he thought that Sandra “could have done
somethin’ to her,” and he agreed. He confirmed that Sandra could have gotten angry and physical
“to the point that it went too far.”
33
He cited a message that Petri had posted on MySpace to Julie regarding a fight
between Julie and Sandra:
Julie, if your reading this, please listen. You and mom seriously need to talk. Yall are hurting me! This fight has gone on too long. Just thinking of you makes me want to come visit you and have an awesome time. . .without mom being brought up into a conversation. Well, I just wanted you to know that yalls fights could also affect the familly… (aspecially me)
Delacruz suggested that Petri had been trying to help smooth over a conflict between Julie and
Sandra “probably like two or three weeks before” she disappeared. However, the message contained
a posting date of April 18, 2009, about a year before Julie was last seen.
Delacruz then suggested that Julie’s family had accused him of involvement in Julie’s
disappearance in order to get custody of L.D. He said Sandra had been “pushing” his suicide attempt
to law enforcement in her custody effort. He told Detective Scott that Sandra had obtained Medicaid
for L.D., which Delacruz said he planned to “investigate.” He said it was suspicious that Dora was
making media appearances instead of Sandra. He said he believed Sandra knew something that she
did not want to share. He said Sandra had been “acting weird, tell you the truth.” He said she would
cry “a dry cry,” which made him think “maybe there was a fight involved and maybe she’s just guilty
about it.” He said it “seemed like she’s faking it.” He then relayed a disjointed story about receiving
a MySpace message from someone in Colorado advising him to get a lawyer to secure custody of
L.D., although he could not produce the message upon Scott’s request.
Delacruz also again alluded to Navarro being involved in Julie’s disappearance and
said that she might know something or be “hiding her.” He said Navarro messaged him on MySpace
34
about not accepting Julie being with “this guy,” referring to “James” in Colorado, but could not offer
additional details or produce the message. Scott asked him if he knew whether Julie had been seeing
anyone else, to which he responded, “That I know of, no.” But he said there were times when he
would get home late from work, so it was possible she had been seeing someone. He said that her
days off were days he had to work, and Sunday was the “only day that [he] actually had off.”
However, Delacruz then told Scott that he had learned about Breaux from Scott in their prior
interview, and Scott reminded Delacruz that he had told Scott he knew about the boyfriend at their
previous interview. Delacruz then went back to his story about how Julie had “[fallen] out of love”
with him, which he said hurt him because he “never had a lot of communication with” L.D. He
again confirmed that he had not known about the boyfriend and still didn’t know about him. He said
that his cousin had sent him a picture of Julie with “this guy,” but that he didn’t know if he was “the
boyfriend.” He then asked Scott whether Julie had run off with Breaux.
23. Victoria discovers the large, freshly dug hole in shed and makes a “frantic, frenzied phone call” to the police
Liliana’s boyfriend, Pedro Carrasco, testified that on May 4, he discovered what
appeared to be a “freshly cut hole in the shed.” The evidence established that this was the same hole
that police had discovered when they first questioned Delacruz at his house on March 28, two days
after Julie went missing. Carrasco explained that it appeared to have been “recently dug” because
the top layer of soil had not dried out. He informed Delacruz’s mother, Victoria, and said that
Victoria called 911 because “she was concerned that her son might be involved in some kind of
incident. It seemed fishy.”
35
Victoria testified that everyone in the family had access to the shed but that people
were rarely in there, “[p]ossibly twice a year or maybe less.” She explained that if a person was back
between the shed or playhouse and the tall fence in their backyard, he couldn’t be seen from the
house. She testified that, when she saw that the plywood had been loosened, she lifted it up and saw
a deep and wide hole. She testified that the tools used to dig the hole were still there and that she
believed that “might have been put there to hide something” like drugs or money. She said she
starting digging in it to see if something was buried in it. She also testified that the fact that Julie
had been gone for a month had caused her concern.
Victoria confirmed that the hole had not been there previously. She said that when
she told Delacruz about the hole, he denied knowing anything about it. She testified that he did not
mention anything about the hole having been dug for plumbing purposes, as he had told the police
when they discovered it shortly after Julie disappeared.
24. What the investigation revealed
APD Detective Jeff Greenwalt and another officer responded to Victoria’s 911 call
on May 4. Greenwalt testified that she had made a “frantic, frenzied phone call” asking them to
come search the hole. He said that she was the only one home when they arrived. He described her
as “in an emotionally ramped-up kind of state” and so “distraught” that they “had to call an
ambulance to the house because of her accelerated heart rate and her nerves.” She informed him that
she had “started digging” in the hole with her hands “and then became scared.” He said that she did
not accompany them to the shed.
36
Detective Greenwalt testified that Victoria had confirmed that she had never seen that
the plywood covering had been cut. She asked them to examine a mound of dirt that had been
deposited behind the shed. He testified that several miscellaneous items, such as patio furniture, an
old mattress, and a plastic cooler, had been “thrown haphazardly behind the shed on top of a large
dirt and pile of leaves.” Victoria told them that the items had been behind the shed, but the pile of
dirt underneath them had not been there prior to the hole having been dug.
Greenwalt also observed several tools by the hole that appeared to have been used to
dig it. The officers also found ammunition in a water bottle and “a few loose ones” by the hole, as
well as a knife and blue latex gloves hidden under a picnic table in the backyard. They also saw
“ashes and burned debris” on the ground near the shed that contained “some burned clothing . . .
specifically what appeared to be . . . purple shoelaces.”
The following day, the case was assigned to Detective Rogelio Sanchez of the APD
homicide unit, who testified that the “trench was consistent with something that a person who had
been killed could have been buried and hidden in.”
25. Delacruz’s uncharacteristic period of gaming inactivity the night before and day of Julie’s disappearance
Evidence in the record established that Delacruz spent most of his time playing video
games, including testimony from his and Julie’s family members. Michael testified that he and
Delacruz would play games for six to seven hours a day and that Delacruz would play with other
people, too. He testified that Julie would ask Delacruz to do things with her, but that he would “keep
playing for hours on end.” Sandra testified that “Julie took on a lot more because George was always
37
playing video games.” She said that Delacruz was playing video games at the hospital while Julie
was in labor with L.D. As previously discussed, the record indicates that Delacruz’s gaming
habit had caused Delacruz to neglect L.D. and was the primary reason for Julie’s and
Delacruz’s separation.
Cellular-activity analyst Jim Cook produced evidence that corroborated the extensive
witness testimony regarding Delacruz’s Xbox usage. Cook obtained records from Microsoft from
March to May 2010 that reflected Delacruz’s Xbox usage during that period. Based on those
records, Cook described Delacruz as a “heavy gamer, using his Xbox every day” during the period
Cook reviewed. He testified that the records showed that Delacruz “played video games daily and
[for] fairly long, established periods of time.”
The records, however, revealed no Xbox activity for over 20 hours beginning on
March 25 at 11:45 p.m. through March 26 at 8:23 p.m., which Cook described as “uncharacteristic
of his gaming activity.” Then from 8:23 p.m. to 1:03 a.m. on March 27, Delacruz left the Xbox in
“dashboard mode”—which Cook explained is like “standby mode” in which the device is on but not
accessing any games—for nearly five hours, the longest time recorded for the review period. Cook
again described this as “highly unusual and very uncharacteristic” given that the next-longest period
of dashboard mode was less than two hours on March 19 and March 25. All other such periods
lasted only minutes or seconds.
26. Events that occurred during Delacruz’s period of gaming inactivity
The investigation uncovered events that occurred while Delacruz was not gaming
from March 25 at 11:45 p.m. through March 26 at 8:23 p.m. On Friday, March 26, Victoria left for
38
work around 5:30 a.m., and Delacruz took his sisters to school sometime before 9:15 a.m. Later that
Friday morning, Delacruz and L.D. walked across the street to his neighbor’s house. The neighbor,
Joe Cruz, testified that he had been Delacruz’s neighbor for nearly twenty years and this was the first
time Delacruz had come to his home and spoken to him. Cruz confirmed that Delacruz told him that
he and Julie were getting a divorce and that Julie had gone missing. Delacruz, however, did not file
a missing-persons report and never mentioned the visit to law enforcement. Indeed, he later told
Detective Scott he had not learned that Julie had gone missing until Sandra called his mother the
following night, March 27.
Liliana testified that Delacruz picked her up from school around 4:15 p.m. She said
that L.D. was with him, which she described as “unusual” since Julie was supposed to pick her up
that morning and Julie “was really strict on what time [L.D.] had to be ready to be picked up.”
Jason Jordan, a customer-service technician with AT&T, testified regarding damage
caused to underground cables located in Delacruz’s backyard on the morning of March 26. He
responded to reports of service outage in the neighborhood, the first of which were received at
9:47 a.m. He was able to determine that the outage was caused by damage to cables that were
approximately two to three feet beneath the surface just behind the playhouse in Delacruz’s
backyard. He testified that the area appeared to have been freshly dug and then covered up with dirt
and wood.
Jordan explained that damage to underground cables is usually associated with
construction, such as installation of a new fence or sidewalk, so it was “strange” that he found
nothing but a woodpile covering the affected area. Once he was able to dig down to access the cable,
39
he identified approximately three feet of damaged cable. He described the cable as “pockmarked”
with “nicks” that appeared to have been caused by repeated forceful contact with the line, such as
repeated shovel strikes. He confirmed that the cable was “fairly new” and appeared to have been
“newly damaged.”
27. Delacruz uses Julie’s credit card on Friday and Saturday after she goes missing
The investigation also revealed that it had been Delacruz—and not Julie or another
woman—who had used Julie’s credit card after Julie disappeared.
Julie’s bank records showed that Julie had last used her credit card on March 25 at
an H-E-B grocery store in south Austin. That evidence was corroborated by video surveillance from
that store that day that captured Julie by herself with a small amount of groceries. Extensive
evidence established that the next transactions, however, were conducted by Delacruz on the
afternoon of Friday, March 26. It showed that he had used Julie’s credit card to purchase items from
a Wal-Mart near his house for himself and L.D. and from two different McDonald’s locations, one
located inside the Wal-Mart and a freestanding location closer to Delacruz’s house.
APD Detective Tony Hogue testified that he obtained a receipt from Wal-Mart that
was time-stamped 2:20 p.m. on March 26. The receipt indicated that the purchases had been made
with Julie’s credit card. The purchases included a princess DVD; a coloring book; baby shampoo,
wipes, and bubble bath; and an Xbox playing card that APD Detective William Summers was able
to confirm was activated by Delacruz later that night.
Hogue testified that a purchase was made at the McDonald’s inside the Wal-Mart at
2:23 p.m. and another purchase was made at the second McDonald’s location at 2:54 p.m. Julie’s
40
bank records corroborated Hogue’s testimony. Liliana also testified that Delacruz had taken their
sisters to the McDonald’s location near Delacruz’s house before Delacruz picked her up from school
that afternoon around 4:15 p.m., which she confirmed was the McDonald’s location they “would
typically go to.”
Video surveillance also captured Delacruz and L.D. at Wal-Mart at the time of the
transactions. Delacruz and L.D. were wearing the same clothes as in Delacruz’s MySpace profile
picture, which evidence showed was taken at a carnival they attended that evening.
Further, Julie’s bank records showed that transactions prior to that day had been
processed as debit transactions, which required entry of a personal-identification number. By
contrast, the March 26 transactions were processed as credit transactions, which did not. Her
account reflected no additional activity transactions after March 26 other than some recurring
automatic charges. Delacruz’s own bank account reflected a negative balance at that time.
28. Law enforcement searches Delacruz’s house and backyard
On May 14, police searched Delacruz’s home pursuant to a search warrant.
Victor Ceballos, an employee of the APD crime-scene unit, testified as to his findings. Among the
items found at Delacruz’s house were the items that Delacruz had purchased at Wal-Mart with
Julie’s credit card. Police also recovered a photo of Julie that had been torn up and taped back
together; Julie’s gym-membership card on the laundry-room floor next to Delacruz’s bedroom;
Julie’s health-insurance card, a baseball bat, and unfired cartridge casings in Delacruz’s room; and
Julie’s journals in the backyard playhouse.
41
Ceballos and Detective Sanchez testified that cadaver dogs had “alerted” at
Delacruz’s house and “had sniffed at” some items in the shed, which was locked when police
arrived. Ceballos testified that, upon entering the shed, they observed that a piece of plywood had
been cut from the floor and a large hole had been dug out. Ceballos testified that the hole measured
approximately five-feet long, two-feet wide, and one-and-a-half feet deep. He testified that the soil
was very rocky and required “[s]ome hard digging.” He said there was a “big pry bar” next to the
hole that was “used to break rocks and stones.” He testified that the hole did not appear to have been
related to plumbing or laying flooring.
29. Delacruz had Julie’s cell phone after he saw her and had authored the texts from her phone and postings to her MySpace account that weekend
The investigation uncovered digital forensic evidence that established that Delacruz
had possession of Julie’s phone the morning of Friday, March 26, through the evening of Saturday,
March 27, after which time her phone showed no additional activity.
Cook testified regarding Julie’s phone activity during that time. He produced
extensive digital forensic evidence that her phone never left Austin and was in fact with Delacruz
at all times. His analysis showed that her phone had been taken near the following locations:
• Delacruz’s house multiple times for extended periods from the morning of March 26 through the evening of March 27;
• Wal-Mart at the time Delacruz was using Julie’s credit card;
• twice at Best Buy when Delacruz bought and returned various items, as demonstrated by receipts recovered from Delacruz’s house;
• a carnival site that Delacruz had attended that weekend; and
42
• (Liliana’s boyfriend) Carrasco’s house, where multiple witnesses testified Delacruz frequently visited.
Cook confirmed that there was not “[a]ny question” about whether Julie’s phone had been near
Delacruz’s house during that time. Cook also testified that Julie’s phone could not possibly have
been in Colorado at any point during that time.
Cook further testified that Julie’s phone activity changed “significantly” on Friday,
March 26, and was “highly inconsistent with Julie’s normal activity.” He explained that, prior to that
time, Julie’s phone would arrive and depart from Delacruz’s house within a few minutes. Beginning
at approximately 10:50 a.m. on March 26, her phone was at his house for “extended periods of time,
some in excess of three hours at a time, through the [March] 27th period mapped with multiple texts
and data connections.” He testified that “[t]his was uncharacteristic of the activity related to the
device.” Specifically, of the 126 texts that connected to her phone, 116 did so in the vicinity of
Delacruz’s house, and of 27 total data connections, 22 were near his house.
Also uncharacteristic of Julie’s normal activity were that all calls during that time
were either routed or went directly to voicemail and that there were “excessive periods where the
device [was] turned off.” Cook explained that, prior to that time, her device was “typically on all
the time, and she’s talking and texting, and there’s activity.” Her phone records reflected no
additional activity after 11:46 p.m. on Saturday, March 27, and her phone was never recovered.
Cook testified regarding his digital analysis using geolocation technology and
identified areas in which Julie’s phone was located when her friends and family had attempted to
contact her. The location of her phone corresponded with Delacruz’s location, as established by
43
other evidence, throughout the period reviewed. For example, that evidence placed the phone near
Wal-Mart at approximately 2:00 p.m. on Friday, March 26, which was when Delacruz was there
using Julie’s credit card. It showed a text exchange with Breaux from 2:12 p.m. to 3:11 p.m., which
is when Breaux testified that he received a text from Julie’s phone saying, “I can’t do this anymore,”
and he unsuccessfully attempted to have her confirm his middle name because he “felt like
somebody else had her phone.” The phone records also corroborated Breaux’s testimony that he
tried calling her during that time, but that his call went directly to voicemail.
The evidence also showed that the phone was near Delacruz’s house from 10:50 a.m.
to 1:49 p.m. on Friday, March 26, during which time a “[m]obile” message was posted to Julie’s
MySpace account reading, “going away hate all this bs want to run away.” Julie’s phone was again
near Delacruz’s house at 7:06 p.m. that night, when a message was added to Julie’s MySpace
account that read, in relevant part, “I’m here miles and miles away from everybody hopefully I will
find myself in these few days. He better show me a good time here and make me forget about
everything in Austin. I don’t want to go back and tell him I screwed up I’m so afraid but I’ll see
what happens.” Further, the evidence placed the phone near Delacruz’s house at approximately
9:35 p.m. on Saturday, March 27, and indicated a six-minute data connection, which corresponded
with the message posted to Julie’s account at 9:40 p.m. that read, “Just wanted to say im ok and that
people shouldnt worry about me and to stop bothering me i want to enjoy my time.” Finally, the
message that was posted to her account at 1:57 a.m. on Saturday, March 27, that read “really happy
for leaving austin I love this place and i miss my ay bay bay” corresponded with digital evidence that
44
placed her phone near Carrasco’s house, which Delacruz frequently visited. The phone was turned 3
off at 2:08 a.m. The records revealed no texts or calls between Delacruz’s and Julie’s phones during
that time.
30. No evidence of “James” or that Julie was ever in Colorado around the time she went missing
Substantial testimony established that no person existed who fit the description of
“James.” Julie’s friends and family confirmed that Julie had never mentioned any such person.
Walgreen’s records confirmed no such person was either employed by Walgreen’s or had patronized
the pharmacy. Further, no evidence, apart from the substance of messages sent from Julie’s phone,
placed Julie in Colorado at any time.
31. Extensive investigation uncovered no evidence that Julie is alive
A variety of law-enforcement personnel testified as to their extensive but unsuccessful
efforts to find any indication that Julie was still alive.
Detective Hogue testified that he searched various records for proof of life, such as
credit reports and records pertaining to Julie’s finances, social media, and telecommunications
services. Detective Scott testified that he searched law-enforcement records, including the TCIC and
NCIC databases, and contacted Homeland Security regarding any passport activity or international
travel. He testified that he transferred the case to the homicide unit after uncovering no signs of life.
Relatedly, Detective Sanchez testified that a message posted to Delacruz’s MySpace3 account approximately one month earlier read, “chillin with my ay bay bay.” 45
Detective Summers testified that Julie had regularly refilled her monthly birth-control prescription
from Walgreen’s. She had last refilled it on February 28; she was scheduled to pick up her new refill
the weekend she disappeared and never did.
Cassandra Cistone, who worked in the missing-persons unit at the Texas Department
of Public Safety at the time, had the FBI run several searches for Julie’s information “against all of
the databases of every law enforcement agency in the country to see if anyone has run that name.”
She also searched other databases using Julie’s personal information and activity—such as name,
address, date of birth, and social-security number, license number, credit history, property ownership,
criminal activity—and received no “hits” on any of that information. Cistone testified that she set
notifications to alert her of any activity related to Julie and that she received no alerts.
James Midkiff of the Austin Regional Intelligence Center also testified as to his
efforts. He searched utilities and insurance-claims databases; searched for visa or passport activity;
and searched records regarding assets, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, associates,
relatives, employment activity, facial-recognition software, and land, sea, and airport checkpoints.
He ultimately prepared a “no proof of life packet” with assistance from a Homeland Security agent.
Detective Sanchez testified that he searched extensively for signs of life, including
running searches based on Julie’s personal information, searching in facial-identification databases,
and checking with various government agencies for activity associated with Julie’s license and
passport. He noted that Julie did not take her car with her or withdraw any money from her bank
accounts before she disappeared. Sanchez confirmed that there is “plenty of circumstantial evidence
that Julie is dead” and testified that he did not believe she was alive.
46
Julie’s family had also utilized every resource at their disposal to locate Julie. That
included appearances on various nationally televised programs to tell their story and to ask viewers
to report any information they might have regarding Julie’s whereabouts. None of these efforts
were successful.
32. Delacruz described a violent altercation with Julie to a fellow inmate
Justin Stewart was an inmate in the facility where Delacruz was incarcerated after his
arrest for Julie’s murder. Stewart testified regarding an occasion in which he described Delacruz as
“venting a little bit” to him. He said that Delacruz described an altercation that occurred between
Julie and himself in which she hit her head, was bleeding, and became unconscious:
“[H]e was almost in tears . . . he felt bad about something. He just told me about an altercation he had with a girl that he had been seeing that, I guess, he had his child with. They had an argument. I believe it was over some guy that she was talking to or something. . . .
I know she tried to leave at one point, and he tried to stop her, and I mean things got physical. . . . He just talked about wrestling around with her. . . . At one point she had—they fell, and she hit her head. I don’t remember what he said, whether it was the table or counter . . . I don’t remember where he said this altercation happened inside the home. . . . She was apparently bleeding.
At that point, I guess she, like any female would—most females would in that situation was going to call. I don’t know if she was going to call the cops or her dad or her brother, whoever. And, I mean, I guess he tried to stop her. . . . I mean, apparently the second time around—I know—I know she became unconscious. She was knocked out. And I know he freaked out. He didn’t know what to do.
Stewart then confirmed that Delacruz had indicated that “she was unconscious at the end of
their struggle.”
47
B. The evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Delacruz murdered Julie
The evidence used to convict Delacruz was solely circumstantial. However,
circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to establish guilt, and the standard of review on appeal
is the same for both direct- and circumstantial-evidence cases. Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45, 49
(Tex. Crim. App. 2004). In deciding the sufficiency of the evidence, we must look at “events
occurring before, during, and after the commission of the offense and may rely on actions of the
defendant which show an understanding and common design to do the prohibited act.” Id. Each fact
need not point directly and independently to the guilt of the appellant, as long as the cumulative
effect of all the incriminating facts is sufficient to support the conviction. Id.
Although no single piece of evidence definitively proved that Delacruz murdered Julie, we
conclude that the cumulative force of the foregoing evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s
determination that Delacruz murdered Julie at his home in Travis County on March 26.
1. Julie is deceased
The evidence supports an inference that Julie is deceased. First, it shows that she
would not have absconded voluntarily: She maintained close relationships with her family and
friends, was committed to her daughter, and was excited about her future with Breaux. She had
made both short- and long-term plans for her life that she had expressed to various people and had
never indicated a desire to run away and leave everything behind. Several witnesses testified that
she did not use drugs or suffer mental-health issues or other medical conditions.
48
The evidence also shows that she did not trust Delacruz to properly care for L.D. and
permits an inference that she would not have left L.D. with him had she decided to leave for an
extended time. The record also reveals that she engaged in no conduct consistent with voluntary
disappearance, such as taking any personal belongings or withdrawing funds from her banking
accounts. There was evidence showing that she had established no new accounts or utilities,
obtained or disposed of no assets, and that she had not traveled domestically or internationally.
Furthermore, several witnesses testified about their substantial efforts to uncover any
evidence that Julie is alive. The absence of any such evidence, particularly in light of the difficulty
of avoiding detection given available technology, permits an inference that she is not alive. The
record also permits an inference that her life ended the morning of March 26.
2. The evidence supports the jury’s verdict that Delacruz murdered Julie
The evidence is sufficient to support a finding that Delacruz (1) intentionally or
knowingly caused Julie’s death or (2) intended to cause her serious bodily injury and committed an
act clearly dangerous to human life that caused her death. See Tex. Penal Code § 19.02(b)(1), (2).
First, although motive and opportunity are not elements of murder and are not alone sufficient to
prove identity, they are significant circumstances indicating guilt. Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341,
360 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Guevara, 152 S.W.3d at 50. The evidence establishes that Delacruz
had a motive and opportunity to kill Julie.
The record demonstrates that Delacruz was physically and verbally abusive and
controlling toward Julie during their marriage. He became emotionally unstable when she left him
and adamantly opposed the divorce. He threatened her, stalked her, and engaged in irrational
49
behavior such as threatening suicide and feigning amnesia for several weeks. The record further
shows that, shortly before Julie disappeared—around the time that Julie began staying with Breaux
and L.D. began referring to Breaux by name—Delacruz’s unstable behavior escalated to rage as
reflected in his social-media postings and emails to Julie. He accused her of lying to him, told her
not to trust him, and indicated an intent to proceed with his “original plan.” Julie feared Delacruz
and had indicated to several people that she believed he intended to harm her.
Furthermore, Delacruz’s uncharacteristic period of gaming inactivity coincided with
Julie’s disappearance. He had also asked her, for the first time, to keep L.D. an extra night and
arranged for Julie to pick her up when no one would else would be at his house. He was the last
person to see her alive. His sister testified that he had scratches on his face that afternoon, which
were so deep that they were visible in the dark and at least three days later when police first
questioned him.
Julie’s body was never found, which supports an inference that it was intentionally
concealed. The evidence supported an inference that Delacruz was digging grave-like holes in his
backyard at the time of Julie’s disappearance. It showed that one such hole was dug before 9:46 a.m.
on March 26, the morning she disappeared, and that the other was dug before police questioned
Delacruz on March 28. Delacruz had attempted to physically conceal these holes and provided
inconsistent stories regarding his knowledge of them. Police also found a substantial amount of ash
in his backyard that contained articles of clothing.
50
3. Delacruz engaged in behavior indicating a consciousness of guilt
Attempts to conceal incriminating evidence, inconsistent statements, and implausible
explanations to the police are probative of wrongful conduct and are also circumstances of guilt.
Guevara, 152 S.W.3d at 50. This Court has long recognized the significance of evidence indicating
a consciousness of guilt:
A “consciousness of guilt” is perhaps one of the strongest kinds of evidence of guilt. It is consequently a well accepted principle that any conduct on the part of a person accused of a crime subsequent to its commission, which indicates a “consciousness of guilt” may be received as a circumstance tending to prove that he committed the act with which he is charged. Attempts by a party to suppress or fabricate evidence have been held admissible against a witness.
Torres v. State, 794 S.W.2d 596, 598 (Tex. App.—Austin 1990, no pet.) (internal citations and
quotations omitted).
Accordingly, perhaps the most incriminating evidence in the record was digital
forensic evidence that established that Julie’s phone was in the same locations as Delacruz after the
last time anyone saw her, which permitted an inference that he was responsible for the numerous
messages sent from her phone regarding her disappearance. The jury could have reasonably inferred
that the messages were his efforts to convince her friends and family she had voluntarily left with
another man. Such efforts are difficult to understand if, as according to Delacruz’s statements to
police, Julie had simply told him “she had some things to take care of” that weekend and that was
the last he had heard from her.
Evidence establishing Delacruz’s possession and use of Julie’s credit card to buy
items for himself and L.D. after he last saw her is similarly damaging. The incriminating effect of
51
that evidence was exacerbated by evidence that showed that (1) Julie had possessed the credit card
the day before she disappeared, (2) Delacruz had not disclosed his possession of that card to anyone,
and (3) he had misled police and others about whether someone else had been using it after Julie
disappeared, including Detective Scott during their April 28 interview when Scott showed him the
Best Buy surveillance video.
The record reveals numerous other instances of misleading and inconsistent
statements that Delacruz made throughout the investigation to multiple witnesses, including law
enforcement, his family, his neighbors, and Julie’s family, as well as critical information he failed
to disclose. For example, Detective Sanchez testified that Delacruz had informed his neighbors that
it was he who had found Julie’s car at Walgreen’s and not Dora. Similarly, Delacruz’s interviews
with Detective Scott were replete with such statements and failures to disclose, which were
contradicted by overwhelming evidence:
• his false statements regarding his efforts to call Julie after she disappeared and denying having access to her MySpace account;
• his false statements about when and how he discovered Julie had been seeing Breaux;
• his false statements that Julie would have wanted to leave L.D. with him if she was planning to be away;
• his false statements about being employed and his work schedule;
• his false statement as to when he discovered that Julie was missing and his failure to disclose that he had reported Julie missing to his neighbor that Friday morning;
• his misleading statements regarding the details of a conflict between Julie and Sandra;
52
• his depiction of Julie as irresponsible, promiscuous, and a drug user;
• his failure to disclose his aggressive and unstable behavior toward Julie;
• his failure to disclose his refusal to cooperate in the divorce proceedings; and
• his failure to disclose that he had her credit card and phone after she disappeared.
Delacruz also offered numerous, conflicting theories about what had happened to
Julie that disparaged her and her friends and family—including that she had simply disappeared
voluntarily; that she had been abducted by “weird friends”; that Navarro and Hays were “hiding her”;
or that her mother had killed her—none of which were supported by other evidence. Detective Scott
testified that he had “underestimated” Delacruz and that he had been “duped.”
4. Other incriminating evidence
In addition to the foregoing, the record contains other incriminating evidence that
supports the conviction. The record shows, for example, that Delacruz signed the waiver of service
on Julie’s divorce petition three days after she disappeared after refusing to sign it for months and
that items belonging to Julie were found at his house, including her health-insurance card. Further,
the digital evidence showing that Delacruz’s highly uncharacteristic period of gaming inactivity
coincided with the hours in which Julie went missing also tends to establish his involvement in her
disappearance. Finally, Stewart testified that Delacruz had admitted to an act of physical violence
against Julie “over some other guy that she was talking to” at his home that had left her bloodied and
unconscious.
53
Based on the totality of the evidence, a jury could have reasonably concluded that
Delacruz murdered Julie. While each piece of evidence lacked sufficiency in isolation, the
consistency of the evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom were sufficient to support
the verdict. See Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778; Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13 (each fact need not point
directly and independently to guilt if the cumulative force of all incriminating circumstances is
sufficient to support conviction). Therefore, after examining all the evidence in the case in the light
most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that the cumulative force of the evidence is sufficient to
permit a rational jury to find that the State proved all the elements of murder beyond a
reasonable doubt.
C. Delacruz’s arguments do not compel reversal
Delacruz’s arguments challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the elements
of murder. Specifically, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove (1) that Julie is dead;
(2) that he caused Julie’s death; (3) that he possessed the requisite mental state in doing so; and
(4) that the offense occurred in Travis County. In support, he cites the facts that the State produced
no body (and thus no autopsy); no murder weapon; no physical evidence, such as DNA, blood, hair,
or fiber; and no eyewitness testimony to the fatal act.
Delacruz cites no authority, however, that requires production of those specific types
of evidence in order to prove the elements of murder. Rather, the law is well settled that the
elements of an offense may be proven by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences
therefrom. See Carrizales, 414 S.W.3d at 742; Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778; see also Fisher v. State,
851 S.W.2d 298, 303 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (law no longer requires production of deceased’s
54
remains in murder prosecution). And, as previously detailed, the record in this case contains
sufficient circumstantial evidence to permit inferences beyond a reasonable doubt as to each of the
required elements.
Delacruz also challenges the sufficiency of Stewart’s testimony to establish that
Delacruz committed a criminal act against Julie that caused her death. He first argues that no
evidence corroborated that testimony and tended to connect him with the offense as required under
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.075. However, as previously detailed, the record
contains substantial evidence that tends to connect Delacruz with the offense committed.
He further complains about deficiencies in Stewart’s testimony regarding when the
described events occurred and the extent of Julie’s injuries. But the State was not required to
produce testimony showing that Delacruz admitted to every element of the charged offense. Rather,
it was permitted to introduce evidence that tended to show that the offense occurred as charged.
Accordingly, Stewart’s testimony was additional evidence that tended to show that Delacruz
committed violent acts against Julie that caused her to bleed and lose consciousness. See Hooper,
214 S.W.3d at 13 (reviewing court looks at cumulative force of all evidence and not at individual
pieces of evidence); Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778 (reviewing court may not use a “divide-and-conquer
approach, systematically isolating and then discounting the evidence supporting” a conviction); see
also McDuff v. State, 939 S.W.2d 607, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (holding evidence sufficient to
support murder conviction despite no remains of victim where accomplice witness testified that
appellant struck victim “with such force that it bounced her on the ground”).
55
Furthermore, the State was not required to prove how Delacruz caused Julie’s death,
only that he did. The court of criminal appeals has explained that “murder is a ‘result of conduct’
offense because it punishes the intentional killing of another regardless of the specific manner (e.g.,
shooting, stabbing, suffocating) of causing the person’s death.” Young v. State, 341 S.W.3d 417, 423
(Tex. Crim. App. 2011); see also Sanchez v. State, 376 S.W.3d 767, 774 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012)
(gravamen of murder is causing death of person); Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738, 745–46 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005) (jury must agree that defendant committed murder but need not agree on “how” he
committed murder).
The State introduced evidence of items found at Delacruz’s home that Delacruz could
have used to kill Julie, such as a baseball bat, a pry bar, and a knife. On closing, the State offered
various theories as to how Delacruz committed the offense. Accordingly, the charge alleged that
Delacruz committed murder “by a manner and means unknown,” which is permissible when, as here,
“[a] limited list of known alternatives does not exist.” Moulton v. State, 395 S.W.3d 804, 810 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2013) (permitting charge of unknown manner and means because record did not point
to conclusive list of possibilities, so there was “unlimited information that may be unknown”). If
the evidence does not establish the precise manner and means, the charge should retain the
“unknown” language because “[w]hat matters is that the jury was convinced, beyond a reasonable
doubt, that appellant was the person who intentionally caused his wife’s death, however he did it.”
Id. at 813 (Cochran, J., concurring). Therefore, the State was not required to establish that Delacruz
caused Julie’s death by the act Delacruz described to Stewart, namely, by causing her head to strike
56
a hard surface, though his testimony is some evidence upon which the jury could have reasonably
relied in reaching its verdict.
Delacruz further argues that this case is analogous to Stobaugh v. State, 421 S.W.3d 787
(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014, pet. ref’d). That case held that the record contained insufficient
evidence to show conduct from which the jury could have inferred that Stobaugh possessed the
requisite mental state to support a murder conviction. Id. at 864. The record in this case, by contrast,
contains substantial evidence that would permit an inference that Delacruz murdered Julie. Contrary
to Delacruz’s contention, the jury was not limited to inferring intent from evidence establishing how
Delacruz killed Julie. Rather, the jury was free to infer intent from any circumstantial evidence,
including Delacruz’s acts, words, and conduct. See Guevara, 152 S.W.3d at 50; Carrizales,
414 S.W.3d at 745 (we must consider “the logical force of all the circumstantial evidence as it
pertains to each element of the offense, including criminal intent”). The evidence here was sufficient
to show that Julie’s death was the result of an intentional act by Delacruz rather than by accidental
or reckless conduct.
Delacruz also argues that this Court’s recent decision in Nisbett v. State,
No. 03-14-00402-CR, 2016 WL 7335843 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 15, 2016, pet. filed) (mem. op.,
not designated for publication), compels reversal of his conviction. In Nisbett, this Court held that
the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to support an inference that Nisbett had committed
murder. Id. at *10-15. But the question of whether the evidence—both circumstantial and direct—is
sufficient to demonstrate the commission of a charged offense in a given case is a highly
individualized inquiry that requires evaluation of the all of the evidence in the record. See
57
Carrizales, 414 S.W.3d at 742; Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778. The evidence in this case is
quantitatively and qualitatively different from that presented in Nisbett. Our opinion regarding the
sufficiency of the evidence in that case, therefore, does not compel reversal of the conviction in
this case.
Here, the evidence demonstrating motive, intent, plan, preparation; concealment and
extensive fabrication of evidence; inconsistent, false, and misleading statements by Delacruz;
Delacruz’s own statements about having committed a violent act against Julie; and the substantial
evidence establishing that Julie is dead are sufficient to support the verdict.
D. The judgments of conviction
Our own review of the record has revealed a problem with the judgments of
conviction. The indictment charged Delacruz with two counts of murder. As a general rule, a
“count” is used to charge a separate offense, and each paragraph within a count is used to allege a
separate method of committing that offense. See Fowler v. State, 240 S.W.3d 277, 280 (Tex.
App.—Austin 2007, pet. ref’d). Here, however, the language of the indictment alleged only one
criminal offense and two possible methods of committing it, but the State separated the two
alternative methods of committing the offense into two “counts” rather than two paragraphs within
the same alleged criminal offense. Count 1 of the indictment alleged one theory of how Delacruz
committed murder under Section 19.02 of the Texas Penal Code by tracking the language of
Subsection (b)(1), and Count 2 alleged a second theory of how Delacruz committed murder by
tracking the language of Subsection (b)(2). See Tex. Penal Code §19.02(b)(1), (2). The jury charge
then properly allowed the jury to convict Delacruz under either of the two alternative theories, and
58
the jury returned a general verdict of guilty without indicating which subsection it relied upon. Thus,
the indictment and jury charge authorized only one murder conviction. For reasons unknown, the
trial court signed two judgments of conviction, one under Count 1 and one under Count 2. Because
Delacruz was convicted of more offenses than were authorized by the indictment and jury charge,
the error is not harmless, and we must strike one of the convictions. See Martinez v. State,
225 S.W.3d 550, 555 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We may strike either judgment to remedy the
problem because the judgments reference the same punishment (life imprisonment). See id.
Accordingly, we reverse and dismiss the judgment of conviction in Count 2.4
We further note that both judgments cited Section 19.02(b)(1) as the statute under
which Delacruz was convicted even though the jury was allowed to convict under either theory
within Section 19.02 and returned a general guilty verdict without indicating which subsection it
relied upon. This Court has authority to modify incorrect judgments when the necessary information
is available to do so. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1993). Accordingly, we modify the judgment of conviction in Count 1 to list the statute for
the offense as “19.02(b) Penal Code” and to delete “COUNT 1” at the top of the judgment.

Outcome: