Henry David Cossette v. the State of Texas

Opinion issued March 12, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals
For The

First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-24-00324-CR
———————————
HENRY DAVID COSSETTE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 184th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1759883

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following a bench trial, Henry David Cossette was convicted of murder and

sentenced to 45 years’ imprisonment. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 19.02. On appeal,

Cossette contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s

rejection of his self-defense claim. We affirm.
Background

In February 2022, Sara Goodwin was reported missing by her roommate.

Goodwin was known to work as a prostitute on the Bissonnet corridor in Houston.

In reporting Goodwin missing, the roommate told authorities that she received a

text message from Goodwin three days before. The text said that Goodwin was

getting in a car with a guy. The roommate became concerned when Goodwin did

not return phone calls, and she drove to Bissonnet looking for her. The roommate

traced a ping of the last location of Goodwin’s phone to an apartment complex at

8600 South Course Drive, about 1.5 miles away from the Bissonnet corridor. When

she tried calling Goodwin, the phone did not ring. The roommate checked the

leasing office and knocked on apartment doors, but she could not find Goodwin.

Detective D. Do with the Missing Persons Unit of the Houston Police

Department was assigned to investigate the disappearance. The unit canvassed the

area, including checking local businesses for surveillance footage. Law

enforcement obtained surveillance footage from a car dealership off South Course

Drive that showed Goodwin getting into a silver car on the same day that she had

texted her roommate.

While the investigation was ongoing, the Homicide Division of the Houston

Police Department received a tip that, on the same date that Goodwin went

2
missing, a tall, slender African American woman had been stabbed, killed, and

pushed onto Bissonnet Street.

Two weeks after Goodwin went missing, Cossette’s girlfriend called the

police to request a welfare check at Cossette’s apartment at 8600 South Course

Drive. The girlfriend met responding firefighters outside Cossette’s apartment and

relayed that Cossette had said he could not live with himself anymore because he

had done something very bad. When firefighters went inside, they found Cossette

had attempted to kill himself by setting a fire using a charcoal burner in the living

room of his apartment. Firefighters found him unresponsive, and the apartment was

filled with smoke. They extinguished the burner and dragged Cossette out of the

apartment. After he received oxygen, Cossette eventually became more alert.

Cossette was very upset and stated that he wanted to commit suicide because he

had killed a prostitute. He said that two weeks before he had picked up a prostitute

in the Bissonnet area, and she pulled out a knife. Cossette claimed that he stabbed

her in self-defense and pushed her body out of his car.

Cossette was transported to the hospital where two detectives interviewed

him. The trial court admitted into evidence a video recording of this interview.

During the interview, Cossette told law enforcement that he picked up a prostitute

and brought her back to his apartment. He paid her, but then he asked for his

money back because she seemed inattentive. When she refused to return the

3
money, he grabbed her to stop her from leaving. He claimed that she threatened

him with a knife, demanded money, and attempted to steal his laptop. He said she

got “knocked out.” Later in the interview, he told law enforcement that id he

pushed her, and she fell and hit her head on a coffee table. While she was semi-

conscious, he got on top of her, put his hands around her neck, and used pressure

until she stopped breathing.

Cossette told law enforcement that he dismembered her body in the bathtub

with a kitchen knife, put the body in multiple trash bags, and dumped the bags in a

field. He used a map to show the detectives approximately where he had dumped

the bags. He also identified Goodwin in pictures as the person he had killed.

Law enforcement found the trash bags with Goodwin’s dismembered body

in the approximate location Cossette said he had dumped them. DNA testing from

the drawstrings and knot of one of the trash bags showed that both Cossette and

Goodwin contributed to the DNA mixture obtained. Autopsy results showed that

Goodwin died from homicidal violence with asphyxia and neck compression.

Law enforcement used a chemical reagent to identify nonvisible blood in

Cosette’s apartment and car. The reagent reacted to nonvisible blood on the

bathtub, bathroom sink, bathroom floor, shower curtain, walls, and back of the

door. Nonvisible blood was found on a mop near the bathtub and on two kitchen

rugs.

4
Cossette consented to a search of his phone. Data extracted from his phone

showed that he had used Google to search for the location where he ultimately

disposed of Goodwin’s body. He also searched for information about various

stages of decomposition and whether a dead iPhone could be tracked. Over the

course of a week after Goodwin’s death, Cossette searched for missing persons

reports on his phone’s web browser.

Throughout the bench trial, Cossette’s theory was that he acted in self-

defense. Following a bench trial, the court found him guilty of murder, implicitly

rejecting that defense. Cossette was sentenced to 45 years’ imprisonment. He

appealed.

Discussion

In a single issue, Cossette argues that there was insufficient evidence to

support the trial court’s implicit rejection of his self-defense theory. We disagree.

A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review

Under the Penal Code, a person commits murder if he “(1) intentionally or

knowingly causes the death of an individual; [or] (2) intends to cause serious

bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the

death of an individual.” TEX. PENAL CODE § 19.02(b)(1)–(2). The Penal Code also

specifies that “[i]t is a defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is

justified under” chapter nine. Id. § 9.02. One justification listed in that chapter is

5
self-defense, which provides that “a person is justified in using force against

another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is

immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use

of unlawful force.” Id. § 9.31(a).

The defendant has the initial burden to produce some evidence to support a

claim of self-defense. Mitchell v. State, 590 S.W.3d 597, 604 (Tex. App.—Houston

[1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.) (citing Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 594 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2003)). Once the defendant produces some evidence, the burden shifts to the

State, which bears the ultimate burden of persuasion to disprove the raised defense.

Mitchell, 590 S.W.3d at 604 (citing Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910, 913 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1991)). “This burden does not require the production of additional

evidence rebutting self-defense; it requires the State to prove its case beyond a

reasonable doubt.” Dearborn v. State, 420 S.W.3d 366, 372 (Tex. App.—Houston

[14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.); see also Braughton v. State, 569 S.W.3d 592, 609 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2018); Zuliani, 97 S.W.3d at 594.

A guilty verdict is an implicit finding rejecting the defendant’s self-defense

theory. Saxton, 804 S.W.2d at 914; Dearborn, 420 S.W.3d at 372. “Because the

State bears the burden of persuasion to disprove a” claim of self-defense “by

establishing its case beyond a reasonable doubt, we review . . . sufficiency

challenges to the . . . rejection of such defense under” the Jackson v. Virginia

6
sufficiency standard. Smith v. State, 355 S.W.3d 138, 145 (Tex. App.—Houston

[1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref’d); cf. Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2010) (providing that “legal-sufficiency standard is the only standard that a

reviewing court should apply in determining whether the evidence is sufficient to

support each element of a criminal offense.”). Under that standard, we must

examine all evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine

whether a rational trier of act could have found the essential elements of the

offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319

(1979).

The trier of fact is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the

weight to be given their testimony. Mitchell, 590 S.W.3d at 604; Dearborn, 420

S.W.3d at 372–73. Accordingly, “[t]he trier of fact is free to accept or reject

defensive evidence on the issue of self-defense,” and appellate courts “presume the

trier of fact resolved any conflicting inferences and issues of credibility in favor of

the judgment.” Dearborn, 420 S.W.3d at 373. “We must be mindful that self-

defense is a fact issue to be determined by the [trier of fact] and that the [trier of

fact] is free to accept or reject any defensive evidence on the issue.” Mitchell, 590

S.W.3d at 604; see Saxton, 804 S.W.2d at 913–14; McFadden v. State, 541 S.W.3d

277, 285 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2018, pet. ref’d) (“Moreover, when there is

evidence, if believed, to support a claim of self-defense, but other evidence, if

7
believed, to support a conviction, an appellate court will not weigh in on this fact-

specific determination as this is a function of” the trier of fact.)

B. Analysis

In complaining of the sufficiency of the evidence, Cossette first contends

that the evidence is legally insufficient to reject his self-defense claim because the

State did not present evidence refuting his version of events. Cossette’s argument

attempts to impose a burden on the State to affirmatively produce additional

evidence refuting his claim, but the State’s burden does not require the production

such evidence. In response to a self-defense claim, the State has a burden of

persuasion to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Dearborn, 420 S.W.3d at

372. Moreover, the factfinder “is permitted to reject even uncontradicted defensive

testimony, so long as its rejection of that evidence was rational in light of the

remaining evidence in the record and is not contradicted by indisputable objective

facts.” Braughton, 569 S.W.3d at 612.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the trial

court could have reasonably concluded that Cossette’s self-defense claim was not

credible. Cossette’s explanation of what happened was inconsistent. When first

removed from his apartment, he told emergency medical personnel that he picked

up a prostitute, and she pulled a knife on him. He said that he stabbed her in self-

defense and pushed her body out of his vehicle.

8
When interviewed by the police, Cossette’s story changed two twice. He

first told police that he picked up a prostitute and brought her back to his

apartment. He paid her but she seemed distracted and inattentive, so he told her she

could leave if she gave him the money back. When she refused the refund, he

grabbed her back to prevent her from leaving his apartment. According to Cossette,

she suddenly became aggressive, pulled out a pocketknife, and tried to steal from

him. He said that a fight ensued, and Goodwin was “knocked out.” She fell to the

floor and did not react when he tried to wake her. During the interview, he said that

he was only trying to restrain her, but she fought him and tried to stab him.

Later in the interview, Cossette changed the story again. He said that he

pushed Goodwin, causing her to trip and hit her head. He told law enforcement that

he was not sure whether she lost consciousness and said that she was still “trying to

react” or “trying to wake up.” Cossette said that he immobilized Goodwin by using

one leg to pin down her arm holding the knife and the other leg to apply pressure to

her neck. Later in the interview, Cossette denied choking Goodwin and said that he

only applied pressure to her chest with his hands.

Goodwin’s inconsistent statements support the trial court’s conclusion that

his self-defense claim was not credible. “[I]nconsistencies in a defendant’s story

can provide evidentiary support for a conviction.” Nisbett v. State, 552 S.W.3d

244, 266 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018); see also Kemmerer v. State, 113 S.W.3d 513,

9
515 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d) (recognizing that jury could

consider defendant’s improbable explanation for how child was injured and his

“changing versions” for how the injury occurred as evidence of guilt).

From the evidence presented at trial, a rational trier of fact could have found

that Cossette’s use of force was neither reasonable nor justified. The trial court was

free to disbelieve Cosette’s claim that the complainant continued to attempt to

attack him with a knife while she was on the floor in an unconscious or semi-

conscious state. Once Goodwin was unconscious, or semi-conscious, she no longer

posed an immediate threat of danger to Cossette. The trial court could have

determined from the evidence that Cossette’s belief that deadly force was

immediately necessary to protect himself was not a reasonable belief. See TEX.

PENAL CODE § 9.31.

The trial court could have considered Cossette’s conduct after the offense as

inconsistent with self-defense. It is undisputed that Cossette dismembered the

complainant’s body in his bathtub and disposed of her remains in a remote

location. Efforts to conceal the body tend to refute Cossette’s claim that he killed

the complainant in self-defense. See Miller v. State, 177 S.W.3d 177, 184 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d) (defendant’s attempt to hide

incriminating evidence was circumstantial evidence of guilt that supported jury’s

rejection of his self-defense claim). The court also heard testimony that Cossette

10
attempted to kill himself because he could no longer live with himself on account

of what he had done. See Lamerand v. State, 540 S.W.3d 252, 261 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. ref’d) (evidence of defendant’s attempted suicide

after offense shows consciousness of guilt).

Circumstantial evidence further supports the trial court’s rejection of the

self-defense claim. The trial court heard testimony that the complainant was a

peaceful person who was not known to carry a knife. The detective testified that in

his experience, prostitutes do not typically carry weapons. The autopsy results

contradict Cossette’s statement that he did not choke Goodwin.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude

that the factfinder rationally could have found that each element of the charged

offense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt and rationally could have rejected

Cossette’s self-defense claim. The evidence is sufficient to support appellant’s

murder conviction. We overrule his sole point of error.

11
Conclusion

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Susanna Dokupil
Justice

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Caughey, and Dokupil.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

12