Seth Michael Adame v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-24-00649-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

SETH MICHAEL ADAME, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 36TH DISTRICT COURT
OF SAN PATRICIO COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Pena and West
Memorandum Opinion by Justice West

A jury convicted appellant Seth Michael Adame of cruelty to nonlivestock animals,

a third-degree felony enhanced to a second-degree felony by a prior felony conviction,

and he was sentenced to two years imprisonment. See TEX. PENAL CODE §§ 12.42(a),

42.092(c-1). By one issue, appellant argues the evidence was insufficient to support the

jury’s verdict. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND

Neal Smith testified that appellant is his daughter’s ex-boyfriend, and the father of

his grandchildren. In 2023, appellant began living on Smith’s property. Smith maintained

several birds in aviaries on the property, including a Moluccan Cockatoo named Timmy.

Appellant was instructed on several occasions by Smith and Smith’s son not to enter the

aviaries or mess with the birds. However, appellant frequently did not listen.

One evening, appellant stayed up drinking. And the next morning, he approached

Smith, staggering and slurring his words. Appellant had a facial injury and stated that

“Timmy is not nice.” Smith responded, “No, you know better. You don’t do that . . . . Did

you hurt my bird?” Appellant responded that he grabbed, squeezed, threw, stomped on,

pushed, and twisted Timmy’s head.

Smith informed his daughter that she and the grandchildren could stay at his

property, but appellant had to leave. Smith went outside to check on his birds. He then

heard appellant screaming at his daughter. He returned inside and told appellant “she

didn’t do this, you did.” As Smith turned around, appellant grabbed him, held him from

behind “to where [Smith] couldn’t move,” started “talking a bunch of stuff,” and “pretty

much spit” in Smith’s face. Smith fell backward to get away from appellant.

Smith’s daughter called police who responded. Law enforcement contacted

appellant, and body camera footage shows appellant standing next to an empty liquor

bottle stating, “Last night, the bird [expletive] bit me in the face. And I [expletive] cut off its

head. And I buried it. Yeah.” Law enforcement testified that it was clear appellant was

intoxicated.

2
Smith testified that he found Timmy still alive (unburied and not decapitated), but

Timmy died a short time later. Photos submitted to the jury depict Timmy’s condition

before and after the events at issue. The before photos show Timmy with intact feathers

and the after photos show missing and disheveled feathers. The last photo shows Timmy

lying stiff, upside down on a wood surface. A photo was also submitted depicting

appellant’s facial injury. The jury convicted appellant as stated above. This appeal

followed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW & APPLICABLE LAW

In a sufficiency review, we assess “the evidence in the light most favorable to the

prosecution” and determine whether “any rational trier of fact could have found the

essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443

U.S. 307, 319 (1979). “We presume the factfinder resolved any conflicting inferences in

favor of the verdict, and we defer to that resolution.” Braughton v. State, 569 S.W.3d 592,

607–08, 612 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). “[T]he jury is the sole judge of the credibility of the

witnesses and is free to accept or reject some, all, or none of the evidence presented by

either side.” Herrera v. State, 513 S.W.3d 223, 228 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2016, no

pet.). We do not sit as the thirteenth juror and are unable to substitute our judgment of

that of the jury. Montgomery v. State, 369 S.W.3d 188, 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012);

Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).

A person commits cruelty to nonlivestock animals “if the person intentionally,

knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence . . . tortures an animal or in a cruel

manner kills or causes serious bodily injury to an animal . . . [or] without the owner’s

effective consent, kills, administers poison to, or causes serious bodily injury to an

3
animal.” TEX. PENAL CODE § 42.092(b)(1-2). “Torture” includes any act that causes

unjustifiable pain or suffering. Id. § 42.092(a)(8).

III. DISCUSSION

Appellant first argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction

because there was no necropsy, autopsy, or expert testimony related to Timmy’s injuries

and manner of death. However, expert testimony is generally not required to establish

injury when the effects of the injury are obvious. See Wade v. State, 663 S.W.3d 175,

186 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022) (providing that “‘serious bodily injury’ may be established

without a physician’s testimony when the injury and its effects are obvious” and explaining

a victim’s lay testimony that she was attacked and stabbed coupled with records

corroborating the injuries was sufficient); see also Julian v. State, No. 05-13-00913-CR,

2014 WL 3587387, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 21, 2014, no pet.) (rejecting appellant’s

argument that a necropsy or other medical evidence was needed to prove a kitten

suffered “unjustifiable pain and suffering” where lay testimony provided the kitten was

thrown, hit a drainpipe, screamed, whined, shook, appeared “broke up,” and died). In this

case, Smith testified that appellant told him he grabbed, squeezed, threw, stomped on,

pushed, and twisted Timmy’s head, and evidence indicated that Timmy passed away

shortly afterwards. The jury also viewed bodycam footage of appellant’s own admission

that he killed Timmy. Therefore, expert testimony was not required to establish Timmy’s

injuries or manner of death. See Wade, 663 S.W.3d at 186; see also Julian, 2014 WL

3587387, at *2.

4
Appellant next complains that his statements to officers were made while

inebriated, contained some objective inaccuracies, and there was no other eyewitness

testimony related to his incident with Timmy. While appellant’s statements that he cut off

Timmy’s head and buried him were contradicted by other evidence, the jury was free to

reject such testimony while also accepting as true appellant’s statements that he grabbed,

squeezed, threw, stomped on, pushed, or twisted Timmy. See Reed v. State, 991 S.W.2d

354, 360 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1999, pet. ref’d) (explaining the jury may

“accept some portions of a witness’ testimony and reject other portions”); see also Cain

v. State, 958 S.W.2d 404, 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (explaining “intoxication bears on

credibility, which is a matter reserved for the jury”).

Having reviewed the evidence in this case, including, notably, the inculpatory

statements made by appellant to Smith and law enforcement shortly after the incident,

we hold that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. 1 We overrule

appellant’s sole issue.

1 Appellant also appears to argue that the evidence showed he was defending himself. However,

the jury was not instructed on self-defense. Appellant does not cite to the record or otherwise purport that
he preserved his entitlement to a self-defense instruction. See Williams v. State, 662 S.W.3d 452, 461 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2021) (“A defendant cannot complain for the first time on appeal about the lack of a defensive
instruction absent preservation of the error.”). Moreover, appellant does not discuss or cite the legal source
for his self-defense claim. The choice to seek defensive instructions involves trial strategy, Posey v. State,
966 S.W.2d 57, 63 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (explaining a defendant may not push a defensive instruction
and “risk losing their credibility with the jury because the evidence raising the defense is so unworthy of
belief”), and thus, such instructions are not law applicable to the case. See Williams, 662 S.W.3d at 461.
As a result, the trial court is not obligated to include defensive instructions in the jury charge absent request,
and Article 36.14 provides that preservation of objections to the jury charge “requires that the defendant
either present his objections in writing or dictate them to the court reporter.” Id.; see also Jauregui v. State,
No. 04-09-00254-CR, 2010 WL 1997771, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 19, 2010, pet. ref’d)
(explaining appellant was unable to argue his actions were excused by self-defense on appeal where he
never requested that the jury charge include a self-defense instruction). Thus, we do not reach appellant’s
self-defense claim where he never requested that the jury be so instructed.
5
IV. CONCLUSION

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

JON WEST
Justice

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

Delivered and filed on the
29th day of January, 2026.

6