Randy Keith Kelsoe v. the State of Texas

In the
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-24-00142-CR

RANDY KEITH KELSOE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 102nd District Court
Red River County, Texas
Trial Court No. CR03385

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef
MEMORANDUM OPINION

A Red River County jury found Randy Keith Kelsoe guilty of murder and sentenced him

to sixty years’ incarceration. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02 (Supp.). Kelsoe’s sole issue

on appeal challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. Because we

find that a rational jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the State met its burden

that Kelsoe intentionally or knowingly caused the death of the victim, Mikael Kelsoe, we affirm

the trial court’s judgment.

I. The Evidence at Trial

Kelsoe was indicted for the murder of his father, Mikael, “by causing blunt force injuries

and or asphyxia by external compression of the neck.” Chief Deputy Robert McCarver of the

Bowie County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO) testified that he was called to Christus St. Michael

Hospital in Texarkana regarding a death at the hospital. The deceased had been dropped off at

the hospital with an explanation by Kelsoe that the deceased had fallen off of the porch, but the

hospital had concerns that the injuries were not consistent with a fall. According to McCarver,

the injuries appeared consistent with someone who had been “severely beaten.” McCarver

testified that Kelsoe left the hospital before he could meet with him, and when McCarver

attempted to contact Kelsoe, he could not get in touch with him.

Texas Ranger Stacy McNeal, a trained blood stain pattern analyst, investigated the scene

where Mikael’s injuries occurred. There was the presence of blood on the back porch and two

areas in the grass. He stated that the grassy areas, which were six to eight feet off of the back

porch, contained “saturated blood stains,” which “would be where a significant amount of blood

2
would gather there on the surface and kind of pool up.” The blood on the porch, however,

appeared to be “drip stains” and were very small. McNeal stated that the back porch had “no

steps that require[d] you to step up from the yard” and did not have “any height” to it. He also

opined that the injuries did not appear to be consistent with a fall.

McNeal interviewed Kelsoe along with his brother, his uncle, and several other

witnesses. Kelsoe informed McNeal that he was the only person with Mikael when the fall

occurred and that he did not observe the fall. He stated that he “could only hear what he thought

was a fall.” Kelsoe stated that he found his father hurt and “convulsing or flopping around on

the ground.” McNeal stated that Kelsoe did not have a certain answer when asked where his

father had fallen, whether it was on the concrete or the grass. Kelsoe put his father into a truck

and took him to the hospital.

Medical examiner Chester Gwin, M.D., with the Southwestern Institute of Forensic

Sciences, testified that he performed the autopsy of Mikael. Upon his external examination of

Mikael’s body, Gwin took pictures of Mikael’s body and injuries. Gwin testified that he noted

“a lot of injury particularly at the central aspect of the face, the left side of the forehead

extending all the way over the nose, the mouth, the left side of the face.” He continued, “There

appear to be two paired abrasions going basically from the left eyebrow ridge across the left side

of the face and associated with that are several lacerations.” The injuries located on Mikael’s

face “indicate[d] that there was some object that struck the face or the face struck some object

that’s caused the injury.” Mikael’s facial injuries indicated that both sides of his face had been

struck by something blunt. Gwin also noted bruising and injury to Mikael’s right hip and right

3
shoulder and a fracture to the right clavicle. Mikael also had bruising to his chin, underneath his

chin, and along his neck. In examining Mikael’s eyes, Gwin noted “little pinpoint hemorrhages,”

which indicated “compression of the neck because the blood [was] being trapped up into the

head and that blood pressure [became] too great for that small vessel and it burst[].”

Gwin performed an internal autopsy of the body as well, and in removing the “wind pipe”

or the “neck structure,” there were “hemorrhages in several of those muscles,” which indicated

injury to that area of the body. Mikael also suffered a fracture of his spine in the neck region,

which indicated “there was some type of force applied to the neck.” Gwin opined that the

injuries were caused by “[b]lunt force injuries consistent with an assault” and not a fall.

Justin Kelsoe, Kelsoe’s older brother, testified that things between Kelsoe and Mikael

had not always been good and that he had witnessed verbal and physical altercations between the

two. Justin stated that Mikael had “personally told” him that he was afraid of Kelsoe. Justin

explained that after an incident where Kelsoe pushed Mikael, Justin and Mikael had a restraining

order placed against Kelsoe. Justin stated that he dropped the restraining order after their mother

passed away because Kelsoe would not have been able to attend the funeral if the restraining

order remained in place. Justin explained that things had gotten better between Mikael and

Kelsoe and that on the day of Mikael’s death, he believed things were good. Justin explained

that earlier on that day, he was with his father and invited him to stay and have dinner at his

house, but that his father declined and stated he had planned to “go home and cook steaks at the

house” with Kelsoe. Not long after his father left, Justin received a call from Kelsoe telling him

that their “dad’s head was bleeding, he was thrashing around, [and he] looked like he was having

4
convulsions or some kind of fit.” Justin stated that he told Kelsoe to take their father to the

hospital and that Kelsoe called him several more times to get further help, asking questions about

what to do next, asking what hospital to go to, and asking when Justin and his family would be

on their way. When Justin got to the hospital, he was told that Mikael was deceased. He

explained that Kelsoe’s behavior was peculiar at the hospital—wanting to leave before other

family arrived and not wanting to sign paperwork from the hospital staff or provide his

information to them. Justin ultimately stated that, while he did not want it to be the case, he

believed “[w]ith all [his] heart and soul” that his brother killed their father.

David Jones, a registered nurse at the hospital, testified that he assisted in the removal of

Mikael from the backseat floorboard of a red truck when the truck arrived at the hospital. Mikael

had no pulse and was not breathing upon arrival. Kelsoe told the hospital staff that Mikael “fell”

and struck his head on the ground. Jones testified that there were concerns that the injuries did

not align with the story told to them. Jones testified that the injuries were consistent with blunt

force trauma to the face, chest, throat, and head. Jones testified that it was hospital procedure to

inform law enforcement when the staff believed “foul play” was involved in an incident, which

they did in this case given the inconsistencies in Kelsoe’s story and Mikael’s injuries. When

Jones attempted to speak with the individual who brought Mikael to the hospital, Kelsoe was no

longer present at the hospital. Another registered nurse at the hospital, Kelsie Bell, testified

similarly to Jones regarding the injuries sustained by Mikael. Bell was the nurse who notified

law enforcement because she believed an investigation needed to be done as to the cause of

Mikael’s injuries.

5
Kelsoe testified in his own defense. Kelsoe explained that on the day of the incident, he

had gone to Avery to spend some time with his family, particularly his father. According to

Kelsoe, Mikael had a “very serious” fall about four to six weeks before that day and had head

injuries as a result, and the family had been spending more time with Mikael as a result. At

some point in the day, he and his father were in his father’s backyard looking at the cows when

his father received a call that caused him to leave the house for a while. He waited for his father

in front of his father’s house and explained that when Mikael returned, he got out of his truck

and said, “That blank better not be in my pills.” Kelsoe explained that Mikael used a curse word.

About five to ten minutes later, Kelsoe recalled seeing his father on the ground in the backyard

and noticed how Mikael was moving. While he was unsure of exactly what he told law

enforcement about the situation, he stated it was because he was in shock. He said he recalled

that he grabbed his father and pulled him to a safe position further from the house. Kelsoe stated

that he struggled to lift his father into the truck that he had driven around to take him to the

hospital. He stated that “any injuries [Mikael] sustained in [his] care” as he attempted to load

him in the truck were “accidental” and would have come from the door jamb of the vehicle He

further explained that he did not wish to be “misleading” in his explanation of what happened, he

did not actually see a fall, and he assumed his father had fallen given how he found him. He

stated he did not try to evade anyone or any questions, that he met with several employees at the

hospital, and that he was open with law enforcement during the investigation.

Kelsoe generally disputed the incident described by his brother in regard to pushing

Mikael one time, but he explained that he did have an incident similar to that with his brother.

6
Kelsoe also explained that he had a criminal history that involved family violence assault.

Kelsoe previously had a methamphetamine problem and a problem with alcohol but stated that

that was in his past. When presented with his prior criminal history, which involved the choking

of two different women, one in 2005 and one in 2018, he denied that those incidents occurred.

He also denied that he threatened his parents with a knife in 2018, stating that the incident “was

blown out of proportion.” While he did not recall mentioning the injuries possibly occurring

from the door jamb of the vehicle, he stated that he told the officers he had “difficulty” getting

his father into the truck.

At the close of the evidence, the jury found Kelsoe guilty of murder and, after the

punishment phase of the trial, the trial court sentenced Kelsoe to confinement for a period of

sixty years and a $10,000.00 fine.

II. Standard of Review and Applicable Law

“The due process guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that a conviction be

supported by legally sufficient evidence.” Braughton v. State, 569 S.W.3d 592, 607 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2018). “In evaluating legal sufficiency, we review all the evidence in the light most

favorable to the trial court’s judgment to determine whether any rational jury could have found

the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Williamson v. State, 589

S.W.3d 292, 297 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2019, pet. ref’d) (citing Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d

893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (plurality op.)). “Our rigorous [legal sufficiency] review

focuses on the quality of the evidence presented.” Id. (citing Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 917–18

(Cochran, J., concurring)). “We examine legal sufficiency under the direction of the Brooks

7
opinion, while giving deference to the responsibility of the jury ‘to fairly resolve conflicts in

testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate

facts.’” Id. (quoting Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (citing Jackson

v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318–19 (1979); Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2007))).

“In our review, we consider ‘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. (quoting Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13). “It is not required

that each fact ‘point directly and independently to the guilt of the appellant, as long as the

cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support the conviction.’”

Id. (quoting Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13). “Circumstantial evidence and direct evidence are

equally probative in establishing the guilt of a defendant, and guilt can be established by

circumstantial evidence alone.” Id. (citing Ramsey v. State, 473 S.W.3d 805, 809 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2015); Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13). “Further, ‘we must consider all of the evidence

admitted at trial, even if that evidence was improperly admitted.’” Id. at 297–98 (quoting Fowler

v. State, 517 S.W.3d 167, 176 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2017), rev’d in part, 544 S.W.3d 844

(Tex. Crim. App. 2018)).

A person commits murder if he “intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an

individual.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02(b)(1). “A person acts intentionally, or with intent,

with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious

objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.

8
§ 6.03(a). “Proof of a culpable mental state is often made by circumstantial evidence.” Rhymes

v. State, 536 S.W.3d 85, 95 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2017, pet. ref’d) (quoting Louis v. State, 329

S.W.3d 260, 268 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010), aff’d, 393 S.W.3d 246 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012)

(citing Dunn v. State, 13 S.W.3d 95, 98–99 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000, no pet.))). When

“determining a defendant’s state of mind, the jury may consider all of the circumstances.” Id.

(citing Smith v. State, 965 S.W.2d 509, 518 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)). “The requisite culpable

mental state may also be inferred from the extent of injuries to the complainant, the method used

to produce the injuries, and the relative size and strength of the parties.” Baldit v. State, 522

S.W.3d 753, 759 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (citing Herrera v. State, 367

S.W.3d 762, 771 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.) (citing Patrick v. State, 906

S.W.2d 481, 487 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995))); see Hart v. State, 89 S.W.3d 61, 64 (Tex. Crim. App.

2002) (stating that intent and knowledge may be inferred from “any facts which tend to prove its

existence, including the acts, words, and conduct of the accused, and the method of committing

the crime and from the nature of the wounds inflicted on the victims” (quoting Manrique v. State,

994 S.W.2d 640, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (Meyers, J., concurring))); Montgomery v. State,

198 S.W.3d 67, 87–88 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2006, pet. ref’d) (taking into account nature and

extent of injuries in determining that sufficient evidence existed that defendant knowingly caused

complainant’s injuries); Duren v. State, 87 S.W.3d 719, 724 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, pet.

struck).

9
III. Legally Sufficient Evidence Supports the Jury’s Finding of Guilt

In one paragraph of his brief, Kelsoe makes his argument as to his sole issue on appeal,

stating that the evidence in the record does not support a conviction that he intentionally caused

the death of his father. While he agrees that the medical examiner determined that the cause of

death was from “an assault,” he asserts that the “evidence as a whole is insufficient to support . .

. intent.”

The jury heard evidence that Mikael sustained serious injuries leading to his death. The

medical examiner testified that Mikael suffered blunt force injuries to his head and face, as well

as asphyxiation. The jury saw pictures of Mikael in the hospital and was able to judge the extent

of those injuries. Furthermore, while Kelsoe did bring his father to the hospital, there was

evidence that the story Kelsoe told as to how his father sustained his injuries was false, that

Kelsoe made himself unavailable to talk to staff or police at the hospital, and that Kelsoe was

unable to give clear information as to what happened to his father. There was also testimony of

prior altercations between Kelsoe and his father and of previous animosity between Kelsoe and

his family. While Kelsoe testified that any injuries he may have caused Mikael were from

attempting to get Mikael into the truck, the jury was free to disbelieve that self-serving

testimony.

“Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, we find that a rational jury

could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that [Kelsoe] intentionally or knowingly killed

[Mikael].” Lay v. State, 359 S.W.3d 291, 295 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2012, no pet.). Therefore,

we overrule Kelsoe’s legal sufficiency challenge. See id.

10
IV. Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Charles van Cleef
Justice

Date Submitted: June 18, 2025
Date Decided: July 14, 2025

Do Not Publish

11