Christopher Weiss v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
________________

NO. 09-24-00168-CR
________________

CHRISTOPHER WEISS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 19th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 2018-213-C1
________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The prior opinion issued by this Court on October 8, 2025, is withdrawn and

this opinion is substituted in its place, and the motion for rehearing is denied.

Christopher Weiss was indicted for capital murder of a child under ten years

old. Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 19.02(b)(1), 19.03(a)(8). A jury convicted Weiss, and

the trial court sentenced Weiss to the mandatory sentence of life without parole.1 See

1
This case was transferred to this Court from the Tenth Court of Appeals in
Waco, Texas, pursuant to a docket equalization order. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §
73.001.
1
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 37.071, § 1(a); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.31(a)(2).

Weiss appeals the judgment arguing two grounds: (1) the evidence is legally

insufficient; and (2) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of internet searches

for “poisoning.”

The State raised three cross-points on appeal, arguing the judgment should be

affirmed but modified to correctly reflect that the trial court, not the jury, assessed

Appellant’s punishment, to reflect the correct punishment of life imprisonment

without parole, to include an affirmative finding of family violence as required by

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 42.013, and to include an affirmative

deadly-weapon finding.

For the reasons stated below, we affirm the trial court’s judgment, as

modified.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Sufficiency of the Evidence

When addressing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider

whether, after viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the

prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the

crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979);

see also Villa v. State, 514 S.W.3d 227, 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). This standard

requires the appellate court to defer “to the responsibility of the trier of fact to fairly

2
resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable

inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319. We may

not re-weigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder. See

Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). “The court

conducting a sufficiency review must not engage in a ‘divide and conquer’ strategy

but must consider the cumulative force of all the evidence.” Villa, 514 S.W.3d at 232

(citing Murray v. State, 457 S.W.3d 446, 448-49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015)). Although

juries may not speculate about the meaning of facts or evidence, juries are permitted

to draw any reasonable inferences from the facts so long as each inference is

supported by the evidence presented at trial. See Cary v. State, 507 S.W.3d 750, 757

(Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319); see also Hooper v. State,

214 S.W.3d 9, 16-17 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (Jurors may also draw reasonable

inferences from the evidence. “[A]n inference is a conclusion reached by considering

other facts and deducing a logical consequence from them.”). Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at

13, 16. We presume that the factfinder resolved any conflicting inferences from the

evidence in favor of the verdict, and we defer to that resolution. See Merritt v. State,

368 S.W.3d 516, 525 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). We do so because the jurors are the

exclusive judges of the facts, the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight to be

given to the testimony. See Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex. Crim. App.

2010). Direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are equally probative, and

3
circumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient to uphold a conviction so long as

the cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support

the conviction. See Ramsey v. State, 473 S.W.3d 805, 809 (Tex. Crim. App.

2015); see also Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13.

We measure whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support

a conviction by comparing it to “the elements of the offense as defined by the

hypothetically correct jury charge for the case.” Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240

(Tex. Crim. App. 1997). The hypothetically correct jury charge is one that

“accurately sets out the law, is authorized by the indictment, does not unnecessarily

increase the State’s burden of proof or unnecessarily restrict the State’s theories of

liability, and adequately describes the particular offense for which the defendant was

tried.” Id. The “law as authorized by the indictment” includes the statutory elements

of the offense and those elements as modified by the indictment. See Curry v. State,

30 S.W.3d 394, 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); see also Swisher v. State, No. 10-19-

00285-CR, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 10402, at *5 (Tex. App.—Waco Dec. 30, 2020,

pet. ref’d) (mem. op.) (not designated for publication).

Capital Murder of a Child Under Ten

An individual commits capital murder if he intentionally or knowingly

murders an individual under ten years of age. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.03(a)(8). “A

person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct

4
when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.” Id. §

6.03(b). Knowledge is a fact question for the jury and is almost always proven

through the circumstances surrounding the crime. See Smith v. State, 965 S.W.2d

509, 518 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (discussing “intent,” as inferred from the

circumstances); see also Lee v. State, 442 S.W.3d 569, 580 (Tex. App.—San Antonio

2014, no pet.) (same). A culpable mental state may be inferred from: (1) the acts,

words, and conduct of the accused; (2) the extent of the injuries to the victim; (3) the

method used to produce the injuries; and (4) the relative size and strength of the

parties. See Rhymes v. State, 536 S.W.3d 85, 95 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2017, pet.

ref’d). See West v. State, No. 10-15-00326-CR, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 5750, at *4

(Tex. App.—Waco July 25, 2018, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for

publication).

Admission of Evidence about Internet Searches for Poison

An appellate court reviews a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude

evidence under an abuse-of-discretion standard. See Montgomery v. State, 810

S.W.2d 372, 378-79 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990); see also Henley v. State, 493 S.W.3d

77, 82-83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). So long as the trial court’s decision was within

the zone of reasonable disagreement and was correct under any theory of law

applicable to the case, the decision must be upheld because trial courts are usually

in the best position to make the determination as to whether certain evidence should

5
be admitted or excluded. See Winegarner v. State, 235 S.W.3d 787, 790 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2007); see also Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 391. A trial court judge is given

considerable latitude on evidentiary rulings. See Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 378-

79. That different trial judges might reach different conclusions on similar facts does

not equate to an abuse of discretion. Id. We review the trial court’s ruling in light of

the information before the trial court at the time the ruling was made. See Hoyos v.

State, 982 S.W.2d 419, 422 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).

The Evidence

The bodies of “Victoria” and her thirteen-month-old daughter, “Angelique,”

were found at Tradinghouse Lake Park in Waco on the morning of November 5,

2017. 2, 3 Victoria was found on the ground near the driver’s side of her car. She had

been shot four times in the head. Angelique, seated in her car seat in the back seat of

Victoria’s car, had been shot twice in the head.

Testimony of “Kathy”

Kathy testified that she had lived in Waco for seventeen years as of the time

of trial. Kathy’s father lived in the Waco area, off Elk Road toward Tradinghouse

2
We refer to the victims, their family members, and the civilian witnesses by
psuedonyms or familial relationships to conceal their identities. See Tex. Const. art.
I, § 30 (granting crime victims “the right to be treated with fairness and with respect
for the victim’s dignity and privacy throughout the criminal justice process”). See
Smith v. State, No. 09-17-00081-CR, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 1874, at *2 n.1 (Tex.
App.—Beaumont Mar. 14, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
3
All dates are 2017 unless otherwise specified.
6
Lake. 4 Kathy recalled that she and her wife visited Kathy’s father on Sundays

“[p]robably every week. On the weekends, we’d ride out there and go see him.”

Kathy and her wife liked to go to Tradinghouse Lake to camp or watch the sunsets.

Kathy described the lake at nighttime, when there was no moon, stating “you can’t

see anything. It’s very dark.”

When asked about Sunday, November 5, 2017, Kathy testified that she and

her wife decided to drive to Tradinghouse Lake just before lunchtime. About five

minutes after arriving at the park, they came across a car that was parked so that it

was blocking the roadway. Kathy drove closer, stopped about five feet from the car,

and she and her wife got out of her truck. Kathy saw a woman on the ground “[n]o

further than 10 feet” from the car, and then saw a baby in the back seat of the car.

Kathy’s wife went to check on the woman near the front of the car and Kathy walked

over and opened the back door of the car and saw the baby. Upon looking more

closely, Kathy saw that the baby had been shot in the head. Kathy became frightened

and told her wife “somebody shot this baby.” Kathy and her wife then went back up

the road to her truck and backed the truck up to the top of the hill. Kathy called

9-1-1 and the operator directed police to their location. While Kathy and her wife

were waiting thirty to forty minutes for the police to arrive, they saw only one vehicle

4
Other testimony showed that the lake area was also known as TP & L, for the
electric company facility formerly located there.
7
leave the park: a red truck that Kathy believed was a Dodge. After the police arrived

and surveyed the scene, officers took statements from Kathy and her wife and

collected both of the women’s fingerprints and DNA swabs. The police also took

pictures of Kathy’s truck and tires and released the women to leave the scene.

Testimony of Mother

Victoria’s mother testified and stated that Victoria was born shortly after

Mother moved to Waco in 1992. She said that after Angelique was born, Victoria

and Angelique lived with Victoria’s cousins, “Aaron,” “Daphne,” and “Reid,” and

Mother and Victoria both worked at a local chicken-processing plant.

Mother recalled that “Sophie,” Victoria’s sister, spent the night at the cousins’

home on November 4 and used Victoria’s cell phone the next morning to text Mother

to pick her up from the cousins’ home.

Mother testified that when the police came to her home and told her that

Victoria and the baby were found dead at the lake, she knew immediately who was

involved because Victoria and “James” (the alias Weiss used) would go to the lake.

Testimony of “Joel”

Joel testified that he was born and raised in Waco and met Victoria when they

both worked at the chicken-processing plant in Waco. He began dating Victoria when

Angelique was about two months old. Joel said he moved in with Victoria and her

cousins at her cousins’ home for a “couple of months” before he moved out. Joel

8
testified that at the time of the murders, he was living with another woman who

eventually became the mother of his son. He testified that he was with his girlfriend

the night of the murders and learned of them the next day.

Testimony of “Jon”

Jon was a friend of Victoria’s brother, Isaac. Jon’s DNA was found in

Victoria’s car. Jon explained that Isaac used to borrow Victoria’s car and give him

rides to and from technical college in the months prior to the murders. Jon was not

surprised that his DNA was found in the car.

Testimony of “Ryan”
Ryan testified that at the time of the murders, he and Victoria worked at

Sanderson Farms, usually on the 4:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. shift. Victoria gave Ryan a

ride to and from work each day when they worked together. He kept his work ID

badge hanging on the rearview mirror in her car. He was not surprised that his DNA

was found in the car.

Testimony of “Claire”

Claire worked with Victoria during the months prior to the murder and visited

outside of work with Victoria. Victoria told her Angelique’s father was James or

Javier Talamantez and showed Claire his photo. Claire was also familiar with the

dating website where Victoria said she met Angelique’s father. Claire participated in

a Waco Facebook group and used the group to try to locate Weiss because Victoria

stated that the dating website was the only way she could contact Weiss. Victoria
9
managed to get Weiss’ license plate number during one of her meetings with Weiss

and Victoria gave the plate number to Claire. Claire posted the information on social

media and someone responded to her post with Weiss’ name and address. Claire and

Victoria then called April Weiss, Weiss’ wife, telling her that Weiss had a child by

Victoria. During that call, a man’s voice came on the line and the call disconnected.

Claire assumed that the man’s voice belonged to Weiss.

Testimony of “Julie”

Julie grew up with Victoria and she described herself as “best friends” with

Victoria. Julie said Victoria was at a mutual friend’s house until about 10:00 p.m. on

November 4 until Victoria stated that she had to go take Angelique to visit her father

so Weiss could spend some time with her. Julie testified she had also formed an

account on the same dating app that Weiss was using as “Talamantez” when Claire

was trying to locate him for Victoria. She said she was able to get Weiss to respond

to her messages even though he was blocking Victoria.

Testimony of “Jordyn”

Jordyn testified that she was friends with Julie, who used to live with her, and

friends with Victoria because she and Julie used to help babysit Angelique. Jordyn

said that on the night of November 4, Victoria came to her house, and they did

Victoria’s makeup because Victoria was “gonna go meet my baby daddy.”

10
Testimony of “Sophie”

Sophie, one of Victoria’s younger sisters, was fifteen years old when she

testified. Sophie said she was nine years old on the day of the murders. Sophie

confirmed that she, Anna, Victoria, and Angelique spent Saturday evening at

Jordyn’s house before dropping Anna at her mother’s house and arriving at Victoria’s

house. When riding in Victoria’s car, Sophie always sat in the back seat behind the

driver and Angelique always sat in her car seat in the middle of the back seat. Sophie

said a “white guy” was at Victoria’s home standing next to a white pickup truck

when they arrived. She continued that Victoria took the baby and the “white guy”

into her bedroom for a while and then Victoria and the “white guy” left. Before

leaving, Victoria gave her phone to Sophie and told Sophie that she and the “white

guy” were going to the lake. The “white guy” left in his truck and Victoria followed

him in her own car, with Angelique in the baby seat.

Testimony of “Reid”

Reid was Victoria’s cousin and he was twenty-one years old when the murders

happened. He and his younger brother, Aaron, lived in the home with Victoria and

Angelique in November 2017. Reid testified that Weiss came to the house around

4:00 or 5:00 p.m. that Saturday looking for Victoria. After Reid told Weiss that

Victoria was at their grandmother’s house, Weiss left. Weiss later returned to Reid’s

house around midnight at the same time Victoria arrived. Sophie, Victoria,

11
Angelique, and Weiss entered the house at the same time.

Reid believed Victoria and Weiss were arguing after they went into the

bedroom, so he, Reid, went to Victoria’s room to ask whether everything was all

right. Victoria responded “yeah.” Victoria said something about going to the park

and asked Reid whether he wanted to go. Reid said he told her “no, ’cause it’s already

late” and went to his bedroom. After about half an hour, Weiss and Victoria went

outside to the vehicles. Reid said Victoria and Weiss started fighting again. Reid said

he heard Victoria crying and Weiss swearing at her. Weiss was telling Victoria “we

need to hurry and f[…] go and stuff like that.” Victoria complained about needing to

put Angelique in the car seat in case there was an accident. Victoria asked Weiss,

“You really want the baby to go flying and die?” Reid heard Weiss respond “I don’t

give a f[…]. Just hurry up and go.” Reid also said he heard Victoria say “[l]eave the

baby alone…don’t hit her like that.” Reid went outside to see about the arguing and

Victoria and Weiss stopped and acted as though nothing was wrong.

Reid also testified that he had heard Victoria and Weiss argue in the past when

Weiss would tell Victoria that he did not want to be with her. Yet, at other times it

appeared that Weiss wanted to leave his wife and be with Victoria. According to

Reid, Weiss and Victoria would argue for up to three hours and Weiss would accuse

Victoria of cheating on him with other men. Reid had heard Weiss call Victoria a

wh[…] during one of their arguments in the weeks leading up to the murders. Reid

12
said he saw Victoria leave in her car, with Angelique in her car seat, that night

following Weiss in his truck. That was the last time Reid saw Victoria alive.

Testimony of “Aaron”

Aaron is Reid’s younger brother. When Aaron was about nineteen years old,

he lived in the home with their cousin, Victoria. Aaron said Victoria moved in with

them when Angelique was about two months old. He said Weiss would come to visit

Victoria and Angelique about every other weekend. When Weiss visited Victoria and

Angelique they would usually “chill” at the house.

Testimony of “Julian”

Julian testified that he took his wife and son fishing at the lake around 10:00 p.m.

on the night of November 4, 2017. After he heard about the murders, he called the

police to report what he had seen that night. While Julian and his family were at the

lake, he saw what were later identified as Weiss’ and Victoria’s vehicles pass by them

and go about one-half a mile down the road to a very dark place on the lake. After

that, Julian did not see or hear anything from that direction before he and his family

left to go home around 3:00 a.m.5

5
Since daylight saving time ended at 2:00 on the morning of November 5,
2017, Julian and his family technically left the lake at 2:00 a.m. Central Standard
Time.
13
Testimony of “Jason”

Jason, who is a cousin of Weiss, was called as a defense witness. Jason

testified that Weiss, his wife, and their two children moved into a bedroom in Jason’s

home on November 1, 2017, because Weiss was losing his own house. Jason testified

that Weiss was having financial problems. Weiss had shown Jason a .22 caliber pistol

when the two of them were in the bedroom and Jason offered to buy it from him.

Weiss declined to sell the gun and later told Jason that it went missing from his truck.

Testimony of Deputy Matthew Glover

Deputy Glover testified that he has worked for the McLennan County

Sheriff’s Department since 2013. On November 5, 2017, the Sunday that the bodies

were discovered, Glover was dispatched to the scene at the lake. During the

investigation, crime scene technicians photographed the bodies, the vehicle, and the

scene. As the investigation continued, Glover lent his county-issued digital camera

to the helicopter team and that team took aerial photos of the scene that day. Glover

identified these photographs. Glover testified that there was only “one way in and

one way out” of the park for “regular” vehicles, as distinguished from ATVs or dirt

bikes. Glover also testified that as part of his job, he has made numerous visits to

next-of-kin in order to provide notice of death. He testified that people react

differently to death notifications, stating “[s]ome [] don’t show any kind of emotion.

Some get hysterical and start breaking down and crying.”

14
Testimony of Forensic Pathologist, Dr. Jill Urban

Jill Urban, M.D., testified that in 2017, she worked as a forensic pathologist

for the Dallas County Medical Examiner’s Office.6 Dr. Urban supervised Victoria’s

autopsy and attended Angelique’s autopsy and concluded that each of the deaths was

caused by gunshot wounds to the head at close range, “[r]oughly, a foot” away. Dr.

Urban further concluded that the manner of Victoria’s and Angelique’s deaths was

homicide.

Testimony of Texas Ranger Jake Burson

Ranger Jake Burson (“Burson”) testified that he had worked as a Texas Ranger

for fourteen years at the time of trial. Shortly after Victoria’s and Angelique’s bodies

were discovered, Burson was called to the crime scene to assist the McLennan

County Sheriff’s Department. At the scene, Burson collected evidence, including

fingerprints from the car, a projectile found in the back seat of the car, and DNA

samples from the outside car door handles and blankets. Burson later interviewed

Weiss and other witnesses. Burson also said he retrieved partially smoked cigarettes

and butts found on the ground near Victoria’s body, close to the car.

After speaking to some of Victoria’s family members, Burson learned that

Weiss had visited Victoria the night of November 4. Burson testified that he spoke

Dr. Urban testified that the Dallas County Medical Examiner’s Office is also
6

known as the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences.
15
to Weiss, who was requested to come to the Sheriff’s Office on the day the bodies

were discovered, November 5. Burson said Weiss came to the office with his wife

and two children and Burson and Weiss had a private conversation, away from

Weiss’ family members. That interview lasted about four hours and was videotaped.

When the interview ended, Weiss and his family left.

According to Burson’s recollection of that initial interview, Weiss admitted to

having an affair with Victoria about a year earlier and further acknowledged that

Victoria had a child, but Weiss was not sure he was the child’s father. Burson said

Weiss told him that the birth of the child had brought a lot of adversity into his life,

that he was having financial problems because he lost his job, and it caused a lot of

problems between his wife and himself. Burson said Weiss denied that he had ever

touched or been inside Victoria’s vehicle and also denied that his DNA would be in

the vehicle. When Burson asked Weiss when he last saw Victoria, Weiss indicated

something to the effect that it was “the other night.” Burson said he specifically

directed Weiss to the previous night, November 4, and Weiss admitted he had seen

Victoria at her house at that time. Burson said Weiss told him he waited for Victoria

for some time and she finally arrived home when he was there waiting for her at

about 10:00 p.m. on November 4. Burson said he finally told Weiss that the reason

he asked him to come in for questioning was because Victoria and Angelique were

dead for which “there wasn’t much of a reaction.” He said Weiss told him he thought

16
something like that had happened—possibly to one of his family members. Weiss

was requested, and agreed, to give a DNA sample and, when asked about his cell

phone, volunteered to turn his cell phone over for a cell phone extraction and data

analysis.

Upon further questioning, Weiss said he owned several guns and had recently

lost, or had stolen, a .22 caliber pistol that he had bought for his wife. Burson later

visited Rodeo Pawn Shop, in Waco, and obtained records showing that Weiss had

purchased a .22 caliber Blue Steel revolver on January 10, 2015. Burson testified,

through presentation of the recorded interview, that Weiss said the day his wife found

out about Angelique was “the day my life fell apart.” Burson said he took a buccal

swab to get a DNA sample from Weiss. Burson said that early in his interview with

Weiss, Weiss denied that he had gone to Tradinghouse Lake with Victoria on the

night of November 4. Burson also noted that the clothing Weiss wore to the interview

was different from the clothing Weiss had worn the night of November 4 when Weiss

was videotaped at Walmart. Burson later testified that he had Weiss draw a picture

in his second interview, after Miranda rights were given, of where Weiss’ truck was

parked and where Victoria’s car was parked when Weiss and Victoria were at the

lake. Burson testified that Weiss’ drawing closely matched the locations where

Victoria’s vehicle was found parked when the murders were discovered.

17
When asked to compare differences between the first and second recorded

interviews he made with Weiss, Burson noted the following differences:

In the first interview, Weiss stated that he left Victoria’s house, went home,

tried to make a surprise visit back to Victoria’s but could not find her, and never went

to the lake. In the second interview, Weiss stated Victoria followed him to the lake

and after he and Victoria spent time there, Weiss left Victoria at the lake and drove

around for a while before going home.

In the first interview, Weiss said he stopped for a while at the Brazos River

before he went home that night. In the second interview, however, Weiss said he

went to Lake Belton for about forty minutes after he left Tradinghouse Lake. Weiss’

cell phone records confirmed that he was near Lake Belton at the time in question.

Testimony of Captain Chris Eubank

Chris Eubank (“Eubank”) testified that in November 2017, he was a patrol

captain with the McLennan County Sheriff’s Office.

Although Eubank was called to the crime scene on November 5, his

involvement with the investigation was “very minimal” that day, and he did not pick

up any evidence. On November 7, the chief deputy, David Kilcrease, requested

Eubank to accompany him to Temple to “sit on a house” while other officers

obtained an arrest warrant for Weiss. Eubank and Kilcrease therefore took a county

vehicle to Temple, and parked “150, 200 yards at least from the house” where Weiss

18
was staying at that time. From that vantage point, Eubank and Kilcrease saw a man

they believed to be Weiss put things in the back of his pickup truck and leave the

house. Eubank and Kilcrease followed Weiss. According to Eubank, Weiss initially

drove “normal,” but when Weiss realized that the officers were following him, “he

was picking up speed. And you could see that he was weaving in and out of traffic.

. . . Obviously, he knew that we were there. And that he was, you know, trying to get

away from us.” When Eubank and Kilcrease saw Weiss enter a parking lot at the

Temple municipal buildings, they pulled behind Weiss’ truck as other officers

arrived and took Weiss into custody.

Testimony of Joyce Marek

Joyce Marek was working as a crime scene technician for the Waco Police

Department at the time of the murders. In November 2017, Marek processed

Victoria’s turquoise Ford Focus for fingerprints and DNA evidence after the vehicle

was taken to the crime lab. An expended bullet projectile was found in the back seat

of Victoria’s vehicle at the scene.

Marek also assisted in searching Weiss’ truck at the crime lab. In that vehicle,

Marek found an unloaded .45 caliber pistol in the driver’s door pocket and a safe in

the back of the pickup. Marek found the children’s birth certificates and various

clothing, among other things. Marek also located a .308 caliber rifle, ammunition, a

long-range scope, and a bow and arrow.

19
Testimony of Serena Zboril

In November 2017, Serena Zboril was working as a forensic scientist in the

DNA section of the Texas Department of Public Safety Crime Lab in Waco. Zboril

explained the DNA testing results established that Weiss was a possible contributor

to DNA found on Victoria’s car keys and Victoria’s black pants. Zboril also said

Weiss could not be excluded as a contributor to DNA found on the back left interior

door handles and buttons of Victoria’s car (because it had limited support for

exclusion).

Testimony of Courtney Ferreira

Courtney Ferreira (“Ferreira”) testified that she was a DNA analyst in the

Forensic Biology Unit at the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences. After

explaining how DNA testing can identify a child’s father, Ferreira testified that she

obtained DNA from Weiss, from Victoria, and from Angelique to determine

Angelique’s paternity. “Christopher Weiss was included as being the biological

father of [Angelique].” In fact, according to Ferreira, “[i]t’s 138 billion times more

likely that Christopher Weiss contributed and is the father than if a randomly selected

individual is the father.”

Testimony of Dustin Losak

Dustin Losak (“Losak”) was working as an investigator with the McLennan

County Sheriff’s Office in November 2017. Investigator Losak obtained and

20
reviewed Weiss’ Facebook posts. In October 2017, Weiss posted that he loved his

wife, but at the same time, Weiss was messaging Victoria about his future

relationship with Angelique. Losak also explained, through video from a Walmart

about ten minutes from Victoria’s house, that Weiss was attempting to go to

Victoria’s house on Saturday, November 4, 2017, and attempting to meet Victoria

that day. Losak pointed out records of Facebook messages between 7:00 p.m. and

10:00 p.m. on November 4, 2017, in which Weiss was attempting to arrange a

meeting with Victoria.

Losak then went through Weiss’ deleted cell phone entries and explained what

was recovered regarding internet searches for methods of poisoning people. Losak

said the records showed searches for “boil potatoes in rubbing alcohol,” “solanine

poison” and “solayene poison,” “how to make rotten meat poison,” “Bow (sic) to

make fatal poison,” “how to make deadly poisons at home,” “how to extract cyanide

from apricot seeds,” and “how many peach seeds can kill you.” Those searches had

all been made just after 11:00 p.m. on October 26, 2017—nine days before the

evening of the murders but were later deleted. Losak also pointed out deleted

searches seeking an address for Victoria’s friend, Claire, who had been trying to

contact Weiss on Victoria’s behalf.

Losak then identified cell tower data that had been deleted at approximately

3:00 a.m. on November 5, 2017, the early morning hours near the time of the

21
murders. Losak also testified about a test-drive he made from Victoria’s house to the

location on the lake where the bodies were found. Losak recalled that the trip took

him just over twenty-nine minutes.

Finally, Losak testified to security video from a car dealership near the lake.

This recording showed Weiss’ and Victoria’s vehicles heading toward the lake at

12:50 a.m. on November 5, 2017, and then showed only Weiss’ truck traveling in the

opposite direction, away from the lake, at 1:27 a.m. on the same date. Losak was

able to infer from the location data that Weiss’ phone was by the lake at 12:56 a.m.

on November 5, 2017, near the time of the murders.

Testimony of Jeffrey Kelly

Jeffrey Kelly (“Kelly”) worked as a firearms and toolmark examiner for the

Texas Department of Public Safety Crime Lab. Kelly testified the .22 caliber gun

Weiss purchased in 2015 at Rodeo Pawn, as shown by the purchase receipt, was

capable of firing .22 long caliber shells. The way that gun fired required the shooter

to empty the chambers of the spent casings after firing so that he could empty the

casings into his hands and leave no spent casings at the scene.

ANALYSIS

Sufficiency of the Evidence of Capital Murder of a Child Under Ten

In his first issue, Weiss challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support

his conviction for capital murder of a child under ten. An individual commits capital

22
murder if he intentionally or knowingly murders an individual under ten years of

age. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.03(a)(8). “A person acts knowingly, or with

knowledge . . . of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain

to cause the result.” Id. § 6.03(b). Weiss does not deny that Victoria and Angelique

were murdered by being shot in the head. Weiss argues that the evidence is

insufficient to identify him as the murderer because the circumstantial evidence is

not sufficient as a matter of law. For us to determine this issue, this Court must

consider the cumulative force of all the evidence. See Villa, 514 S.W.3d at 232. “In

all prosecutions for murder, the state or the defendant shall be permitted to offer

testimony as to all relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the killing and the

previous relationship existing between the accused and the deceased, together with

all relevant facts and circumstances going to show the condition of the mind of the

accused at the time of the offense.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.36(a).

Weiss contends that the evidence is insufficient in five areas: (1) motive,

including marital/relationship difficulties, (2) opportunity, (3) the prior behaviors of

a defendant, (4) inconsistencies in the defendant’s story, and (5) a catch-all of other

circumstantial evidence.

A review of the evidence shows the jury heard evidence about the relationship

Weiss had with Victoria and Angelique. Victoria’s cousin, Reid, testified that he had

heard Victoria and Weiss argue in the bedroom and again in the driveway on the

23
night of the murders. Reid said that in the past, Weiss would tell Victoria that he did

not want to be with her, that they would argue for up to three hours sometimes, and

Weiss would accuse Victoria of cheating on him with other men. Reid had heard

Weiss call Victoria a wh[…] during one of their arguments in the weeks leading up

to the murders. Weiss himself told Ranger Burson that the day his wife found out

about Angelique was “the day my life fell apart.” Weiss also told Ranger Burson that

on the night of the November 4 meeting between himself and Victoria, he told

Victoria “I don’t want my wife to know I’m still messing—doing stuff.” Weiss was

afraid that his relationship with Victoria was going to cause his wife to leave him.

The State, though not required to show motive,7 established a motive for

Weiss to want to murder Victoria and Angelique and that is one kind of evidence to

aid the jury in establishing proof of the offense. See Crane v. State 786 S.W.2d 338,

349-50 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (citing Porter v. State, 623 S.W.2d 374, 386 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1981) (admission of evidence that the defendant shot the victim to avoid

being apprehended for an armed robbery that the defendant committed eleven days

earlier)).

That is not the only evidence of Weiss’ motive. Weiss’ cousin, Jason, said

Weiss and Weiss’ family moved into a bedroom in Jason’s home on November 1,

Motive is not an element of the crime of murder. See Tex. Penal Code Ann.
7

§ 19.02(b)(1); see Ingerson v. State, 559 S.W.3d 501, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018).
24
2017, because Weiss was losing his own house and was having financial problems.

According to Facebook messages Weiss exchanged with Victoria, Weiss was

concerned that Victoria would seek child support from him if she pursued a paternity

claim against him at a point in time when Weiss did not even have enough money

for gas. See Sanders v. State, No. 01-07-00775-CR, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 2561, at

*24-26 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 2, 2009, pet. ref’d) (Evidence that the

defendant did not want his girlfriend to discover that he had impregnated another

woman and did not want to pay child support were evidence of his motive to commit

murder.). There was evidence of Weiss’ motive to murder Victoria and Angelique

upon which the jury could have based its verdict. Id.

There is also evidence that Weiss had opportunity to commit the murders that

night. Here, the evidence at trial showed that Appellant’s DNA was found inside

Victoria’s vehicle at the scene of the murders and on her clothing. In addition, cell

phone records reveal that Weiss and Victoria were in contact on the day she died.

Cell phone records place Appellant in close proximity to Victoria and Angelique at

the time of their deaths, although the records cannot pinpoint Weiss’ exact location

at the time of the murders. The cell phone records show that Weiss and Victoria were

conversing in the hours before the murders. Reid and other family members testified

that Weiss met Victoria at the house the night of November 4, went into her room

with her, and then both left after saying they were going to the lake where the bodies

25
were later found.

Reid saw Weiss leave with Victoria and Angelique following him in Victoria’s

car. Weiss was the last person seen with Victoria and Angelique when they were

alive. Reid testified about the prior behavior of Weiss when Weiss and Victoria

would argue about whether Weiss wanted to be with Victoria or stay with his wife.

Reid said that on the night of the murders, Weiss sounded angry to the point that

Reid went outside to see whether Weiss and Victoria were fighting. But Weiss and

Victoria quickly quieted down and acted as though they were not angry. The

behaviors Reid described provided the jury with evidence that Weiss’ anger at

Victoria may have motivated Weiss to commit the murders.

Since Weiss was charged with and convicted of murdering Angelique, rather

than Victoria, we further observe that Weiss’ behavior toward Angelique was not that

of a protective father. Specifically, Weiss referred to Angelique as “the child” or “it”

when speaking with Burson. Weiss also was overheard stating that he did not care if

Angelique were killed in a car accident. Since Reid heard Victoria tell Weiss not to

hit Angelique, the jury reasonably could have inferred that Weiss was striking his

child in a way that showed he did not care about her.

Weiss is the undisputed father of Angelique based upon the DNA evidence

admitted without objection at trial. There was evidence that Weiss admitted that he

did not want his wife and his family to find out that he had a sexual relationship and

26
a child with Victoria. There was evidence Weiss was concerned about having to pay

child support payments for Angelique. Finally, the jury heard evidence that Weiss

lied to police and gave different versions of his actions on the night of the murders.

See Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45, 50 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Attempts to

conceal incriminating evidence, inconsistent statements, and implausible

explanations to the police are probative of wrongful conduct and are also

circumstances of guilt.) (internal citation omitted). Weiss offered no alibi witnesses

to corroborate his account of his whereabouts and movements on the night of the

murders. In fact, near the time of the murders, Weiss’ and Victoria’s vehicles were

recorded going in the direction of the lake and later, only Weiss’ vehicle was

recorded leaving from the direction of the lake. Although Weiss attempted to explain

this evidence by claiming that he left Victoria and Angelique alive at the lake, the

jury need not have credited this statement. Instead, the jury could have accepted the

State’s theory of the case: Victoria’s car did not leave the lake area with Weiss

because Victoria and Angelique were already dead.

The jury heard evidence of Weiss’ erratic driving when he left the house he

shared with his cousin, and could have interpreted this evidence, as Eubank did, as

showing Weiss’ attempt to avoid arrest. Since “[e]vidence of flight . . . shows a

consciousness of guilt of the crime for which the defendant is on trial[]” the jury

could have construed this evidence meaning Weiss was guilty. Bigby v. State, 892

27
S.W.2d 864, 884 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (citations omitted).

In a similar case, the Court of Criminal Appeals considered a murder

conviction based on circumstantial evidence. See Ingerson v. State, 559 S.W.3d 501,

509 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). In Ingerson, as here, the murder weapon was never

found. When Ingerson told police he “sold [a particular gun] to a ‘Mexican’ he met

on a South Padre Island Beach[,]” the jury did not have to accept that explanation at

face value. Id. at 510. Weiss’ jury likewise did not have to believe that Weiss’ missing

gun disappeared from his truck and may have been stolen at Walmart, as Weiss

claimed. The Ingerson court considered Ingerson’s motive to kill his victims, his

“avoidance of the police,” his statement to an acquaintance, his opportunity to

commit the murders, and his conduct afterward, and concluded that the

circumstantial evidence, when “viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict,”

was sufficient to support the verdict. Id. at 511.

Similarly, here the evidence showed Weiss had previously purchased a .22

caliber pistol which an expert testified was capable of firing the kind of shots that

killed Victoria and Angelique. Weiss’ cousin confirmed that he had seen Weiss with

the .22 caliber pistol some time prior to the murders and he had offered to buy it

from Weiss. While it is true that there were no eyewitnesses to the crime, no murder

weapon was recovered, and there was DNA from other persons who had spent time

in Victoria’s car, considering all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the

28
verdict, we conclude that a rational jury could have found Weiss guilty of the

essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See Winfrey v. State, 323

S.W.3d 875, 878–79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319).

“[T]his was not a determination so outrageous that no rational trier of fact could

agree.” See Wirth v. State, 361 S.W.3d 694, 698 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). We overrule

Weiss’ first issue.

Admission of Internet Searches for Poison

In his second issue, Weiss argues that the trial court reversibly erred by admitting

evidence that Weiss had made internet searches about how to make poison, searches

which were deleted in the days prior to the murders. Investigator Losak testified that

a search of Weiss’ phone records showed searches for “boil potatoes in rubbing

alcohol,” “solanine poison” and “solayene poison,” “how to make rotten meat

poison,” “Bow (sic) to make fatal poison,” “how to make deadly poisons at home,”

“how to extract cyanide from apricot seeds,” and “how many peach seeds can kill

you.” Weiss made timely objections that the evidence was not relevant and was more

prejudicial than probative.8 Rule 401 states that relevant evidence is any evidence

that tends to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence

8
Weiss’ counsel objected on the ground that this evidence was not relevant
and that any relevance this evidence might have is “substantially outweighed by the
prejudicial effect of such evidence.” The trial court overruled the objection, citing
article 38.36, subpart a. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.36(a).
29
and is consequential in determining the action. Tex. R. Evid. 401. If the evidence

provides even a small nudge toward proving or disproving a fact of consequence, it

is relevant. See Gonzalez v. State, 544 S.W.3d 363, 370 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018).

However, relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially

outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury,

causing undue delay or it is needlessly cumulative. Tex. R. Evid. 403. To violate Rule

403, it is not enough that the evidence is “prejudicial”—it must be unfairly prejudicial.

Vasquez v. State, 67 S.W.3d 229, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).

The searches were made on October 26, 2017—nine days before the evening

of the murders. The searches were subsequently deleted. Losak also pointed out

other deleted searches Weiss made when he was searching for an address for

Victoria’s friend, Claire, one of the people who called Weiss’ wife on the phone. The

trial court ruled that the evidence of the searches and deletions was admissible under

article 38.36(a) which provides “in all prosecutions for murder, the state or the

defendant shall be permitted to offer testimony as to all relevant facts and

circumstances surrounding the killing and the previous relationship existing between

the accused and the deceased, together with all relevant facts and circumstances

going to show the condition of the mind of the accused at the time of the offense.”

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.36(a).

30
While Weiss is factually correct that Victoria and Angelique were shot, not

poisoned, the trial court could have reasonably concluded that the evidence of his

searches regarding poison was relevant to show the “condition of the mind” of Weiss

shortly before the murders were committed, which is expressly permitted by article

38.36(a). Id. The evidence tends to establish Weiss’ state of mind that he wanted to

kill someone—albeit by poisoning rather than by shooting with a gun. We cannot

say the trial court abused its discretion in overruling the objections. Id.; see

Winegarner, 235 S.W.3d at 790; Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 291.

Weiss further objected that the evidence was so prejudicial to his case that the

admission of the poison searches substantially outweighed its probative value. We

must consider whether the evidence of the poison searches had a tendency to suggest

that the jury decide the case on an improper basis, such as an emotional one. See

Rogers v. State, 991 S.W.2d 263, 266 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). While all relevant

evidence may be prejudicial to one side or the other, the question is whether there is

a “clear disparity” between the degree of prejudice compared to its probative value.

See Joiner v. State, 825 S.W.2d 701, 708 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). We analyze a Rule

403 objection by balancing the inherent probative force of the evidence, along with

the proponent’s need for the evidence, against the tendency to suggest a decision on

an improper basis, to confuse or distract the jury, to cause the jury to give undue

weight to the evidence, or to be repetitive or inordinately time consuming. Tex. R.

31
Evid. 403; see Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637, 641-42 (Tex. Crim. App.

2006). In response to the prejudice objection, the prosecution contends it had great

need for the evidence because Weiss had told Ranger Burson during his interview

that he had “no friction” with Victoria, that he and Victoria never argued or had

disagreements, and that he had no motive to kill Victoria or Angelique. While Reid

testified that he heard arguments between Weiss and Victoria on more than one

occasion, including the night they left the house to go to the lake, Weiss contended

that there was no evidence that these arguments rose to the level of wanting to

commit murder. The evidence of Weiss’ internet searches about how to make poison

show Weiss’ state of mind and that his relationship with Victoria was getting to the

point that he was actively considering ways to kill her. The fact that the searches

were deleted before Weiss relinquished his phone to the police for analysis was also

probative because evidence that an actor hid or attempted to hide evidence is

admissible to infer scienter (guilty knowledge). See Guevara, 152 S.W.3d at 50. The

State demonstrated this evidence was necessary to show the relationship between

Weiss and Victoria was not friendly and without friction as Weiss had described it to

Ranger Burson. The admission of the evidence was neither confusing, nor did it

suggest that the jury should decide the case on an improper basis. The presentation

of the challenged evidence was relatively brief, was not cumulative or repetitive, and

its admission was within the sound discretion of the trial court. See Henley v. State,

32
493 S.W.3d at 82-83. We conclude the trial court did not err by admitting the

evidence. Because the evidence was properly admitted, we need not conduct a harm

analysis. Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b), 47.1. We overrule Weiss’ second issue.

CROSS-POINTS BY THE STATE

In three cross-points of error brought by the State, the State urges that the

judgment entered in this case is incorrect because: 1) the punishment was assessed

by the judge, and not the jury, and the place of confinement fails to state that the

mandatory life sentence is “without parole;” 2) the judgment fails to include an

affirmative finding of family violence; and 3) the judgment fails to include a finding

that a deadly weapon was used in the commission of the offense. See Tex. Penal

Code Ann. § 12.31(a)(2); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.013.

Appellant filed no reply to the State’s cross-points. We have the power to

modify a judgment to speak the truth when we have the necessary information to do

so. Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App.

1993). A review of the record indicates that the trial judge pronounced the life

sentence without parole from the bench, stating: “your punishment is assessed at life

imprisonment without the possibility of parole.” When the oral pronouncement of

sentence and the written judgment vary, the oral pronouncement controls. See Ex

parte Madding, 70 S.W.3d 131, 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (citing Coffey v. State,

979 S.W.2d 326, 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)). Therefore, we sustain the State’s first

33
cross-point.

The State’s second cross-point seeks to enforce article 42.013 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure regarding a finding of family violence because the undisputed

trial evidence showed that Angelique was Weiss’ biological child. See Tex. Code

Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.013. Article 42.013 states that “[i]n the trial of an offense

under Title 5, Penal Code, if the court determines that the offense involved family

violence, as defined by Section 71.004, Family Code, the court shall make an

affirmative finding of that fact and enter the affirmative finding in the judgment of

the case.” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 42.013. To determine whether an offense involved

family violence, we look to the Family Code and the Government Code. Section

71.004 of the Family Code defines family violence, in part, as “an act by a member

of a family or household against another member of the family or household that is

intended to result in physical harm [or] bodily injury[.]” Id. § 71.004(1). According

to the Family Code, a “Family” includes individuals related by consanguinity

pursuant to Government Code section 573.022, without regard to whether those

individuals reside together. See id. § 71.003; Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 573.022. The

Government Code then defines “consanguinity,” stating that two people are related

by consanguinity if one is a descendant of the other. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §

573.022(a)(1). Since the trial evidence established family violence under these

definitions, the trial court was required to make a family-violence finding in the

34
judgment. We sustain the State’s second cross-point.

The State’s third cross-point complains that the judgment does not contain a

finding that a deadly weapon was used in the commission of the offense. A finding

that appellant was found guilty of the offense “as alleged in the indictment” is

sufficient to authorize the entry of a deadly-weapon finding. See Duran v. State, 492

S.W.3d 741, 746 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (explaining that one way in which “a court

can determine that the trier of fact actually made an affirmative finding of a deadly

weapon” is when “the indictment specifically alleged a ‘deadly weapon’ was used

[using the words ‘deadly weapon’] and the defendant was found guilty “as charged

in the indictment”). In this case, the indictment read, in relevant part, that Weiss

caused the death of the child, “by shooting the Deceased with a firearm, a deadly

weapon….” Additionally, the jury charge included instructions and definitions

regarding the offense as alleged in the indictment and instructed that “‘Deadly

weapon’ means a firearm ...,” and the charge’s application paragraph for capital

murder included:

You must determine whether the State has proved, beyond a reasonable
doubt the elements. The elements are that:

1. The Defendant, Christopher Weiss;
2. in McLennan County, Texas;
3. on or about the 5th day of November, 2017;
4. did then and there intentionally or knowingly cause the death of
[Angelique], an individual hereinafter called the Deceased;

35
5. by shooting the Deceased with a firearm, a deadly weapon; and
6. The Deceased was under ten years of age.

In the jury’s verdict the jury concludes: “We, the jury, find the Defendant,

Christopher Weiss, guilty of the offense of Capital Murder, as alleged in the

indictment.” Therefore, the jury made an affirmative finding that a deadly weapon

was used, and we sustain the State’s third cross-point and order the judgment

reformed accordingly.

CONCLUSION

Having overruled both of Appellant’s issues, we affirm the judgment of the

trial court, as modified. We order the judgment to be modified to include language

that the punishment was assessed by the Judge, the place of confinement states that

the mandatory life sentence is “without parole,” that the judgment includes an

affirmative finding that Weiss is guilty of committing family violence, and that the

judgment contains a finding that a deadly weapon was used in the commission of the

offense.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

JAY WRIGHT
Justice

Submitted on September 11, 2025
Opinion Delivered October 22, 2025
Do Not Publish

Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.
36