http://www.texas-mugshot-browser.com/Counties/Williamson-County/Shaun-D-Samuelson.22833652.html
Shaun D Samuelson
CountyWilliamson, TX
Booking #26231
Arresting AgencyWilliamson County Sheriff's Office
FacilityMain Jail
Booked1990-12-10
Released1990-12-12
FirstSHAUN
MiddleD
LastSAMUELSON
RaceWhite
SexM
Height75
Weight210
HairBlond or Strawberry
SO #85-99929
EyesBlue
Charges
Warrant # Charge Issuing Auth Offense Date Bond/Type Fine/Crt Costs Disposition Bond Amount
CARTER COMMITMENT RELEASE 12-12-90 Time Served Dump Code: Unk if Misdemeanor or Felony
Aliases
Alias
SAMUELSON, SHAUN
SAMUELSON, SHAUN DAVID
-----
https://www.texastribune.org/library/data/texas-prisons/inmates/shaun-david-samuelson/672742/
Shaun David SamuelsonTDCJ ID 01812312
Unit Wynne
DOB 1/4/1966
Age 48
Home County Hays
Sex Male
Race White
Height 6 ft 2 in
Weight 236 lbs
Hair Color Brown
Eye Color Hazel
Status Active; New Received
Crime Committed On County Term Sentence Began
CAPITAL MURDER 9/29/2011 Travis Life Without Parole 9/29/2011
AGG ASLT SBI 4/16/2006 Travis 2 years, 6 months 4/16/2006
The “Crime” field is the human entered description provided by the TDCJ and can vary between convictions for the same crime.
-----
MyFoxAustin.com | KTBC Fox 7 | News, Weather, Sports
http://www.myfoxaustin.com/clip/7738938/
-----
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2719669/shaun-david-samuelson-v-state/
Shaun David Samuelson v. State, 03-12-00837-CR (Tex. App. 2014)
Sign in or register to save a favorite. (click to dismiss)
Court of Appeals of Texas
Filed: August 21st, 2014
Status: Precedential
Docket Number: 03-12-00837-CR
Fingerprint: 34488197944615682601dc7ff9f40ae79a1e8974
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-12-00837-CR
Shaun David Samuelson, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 427TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-DC-12-904061, HONORABLE JIM CORONADO, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found Shaun David Samuelson guilty of the capital murder of his mother, and
the trial court assessed a punishment of life in prison without parole. See Tex. Penal Code §§ 12.31,
19.03, 36.06. Appellant asserts that the trial court erred by overruling his motion to suppress his
videotaped statement to police because, he alleges, the police continued to question him despite
his unequivocal invocation of his right to counsel. He also contends that the trial court erred by
overruling his objection to the portion of a police officer’s in-car video showing the victim
accusing appellant of assaulting her, which he contends violated both his Sixth Amendment right
to confrontation and the hearsay exclusionary rule. We will affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
Austin police officers and emergency medical technicians responded to a 911 call
from Virginia Samuelson, who claimed she had been beaten by her son, appellant. They met her at
a gas station. A police officer testified that he asked Mrs. Samuelson questions about the assault to
determine where appellant might be going and gave way to the EMTs, who testified that they asked
her questions regarding her injuries. Police and EMTs testified that Mrs. Samuelson had swelling
spots on her face and a busted lip. They testified that she seemed nervous and shaken. The police
officer went to his car to request that Hays County officers check to see if appellant had gone home.
The EMTs testified that they persuaded Mrs. Samuelson to let them take her to the
hospital for further examination, and she got onto their gurney near her car and the police car.
Before they could move her to the ambulance, however, they and the police officer heard screeching
tires and an accelerating engine. They saw a large black pickup heading straight for them. One of
the EMTs testified that he made eye contact with the driver who, he said, “had both hands on the
steering wheel, was staring straight ahead and accelerating.” The police officer stepped away from
his patrol car and the EMTs attempted to pull the gurney away with them, but it would not move.
The pickup slammed into the gurney and the adjacent vehicles, then left the premises.
The police officer testified that he followed on foot with his gun drawn. He said that
the pickup stopped, and appellant got out, shouting “Shoot me, shoot me.” The EMS gurney was
trapped underneath the front of the pickup. The EMTs testified that they found Mrs. Samuelson
on the ground not breathing, without a pulse, and clearly dead. The medical examiner testified
regarding her massive injuries including many broken ribs, a torn aorta, a pulpified liver, and
severely broken extremities.
2
DISCUSSION
The trial court did not err by overruling the motion to suppress.
Appellant contends that the trial court should have suppressed the portion of
a videotape after his “unequivocal invocation” of his right to counsel. The following exchange
occurred over an hour into the interview at the police station:
[Detective Christopher Smyth]: So were you trying to hit the police officers?
[Appellant]: Not specifically, no.
[Det. Smyth]: Okay. Were you trying to hit the EMS people?
[Appellant]: No.
[Det. Smyth]: Okay. Were you trying to hit your mom?
[Appellant]: I probably shouldn’t say any more without a lawyer but yes I was
trying to hit my mom. I felt nothing but such great rage toward her at that point that.
I don’t know what else I can say. It’s all. You guys understand people. You’re
police detectives, you study people. You guys know what happened.
[Detective Will White]: Well, you gotta understand, and I know you said earlier that,
um, we have cameras, there were people all over there. That doesn’t mean we don’t
like to let people give their side of things, um, cause it’s important, that you have
your say.
[Appellant]: My side of things is basically that I just, is that I just hate her.
(Emphasis added.) Appellant contends that the bolded statement was an unequivocal invocation of
his right to counsel and that the interview should have stopped then. He contends that the trial court
should have excluded all portions of the videotape following that statement.
3
We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence for abuse
of discretion. Crain v. State, 315 S.W.3d 43, 48 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). A trial court abuses
its discretion when its ruling is arbitrary or unreasonable. State v. Mechler, 153 S.W.3d 435, 439
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We defer almost completely to the trial court’s determinations of historical
fact, especially if they are based on assessments of witness credibility and demeanor. Crain,
315 S.W.3d at 48. We afford the same deference to trial court rulings on the application of law to
pure questions of fact and to mixed questions of law and fact that depend on evaluation of witness
credibility and demeanor. Id. For mixed questions of law and fact that do not depend on evaluation
of witness credibility and demeanor, however, we review the trial court’s rulings de novo. Id.
When a suspect asks for a lawyer, interrogation must stop until counsel has been
provided or the suspect initiates further communication with the police. Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d
317, 339 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). To trigger law enforcement’s duty to stop the interrogation, a
suspect’s request for counsel must be clear, and the police are not required to attempt to clarify
ambiguous remarks. Id. Whether a statement referring to a lawyer constitutes a clear request for
counsel depends on the statement itself and the totality of the circumstances surrounding the
statement. Id. The test is objective: whether the suspect “articulate[d] his desire to have counsel
present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the
statement to be a request for an attorney.” Id. The Court of Criminal Appeals cited a Supreme Court
holding that the statement by the defendant, “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer,” did not constitute an
unambiguous or clear request for counsel. See id. (citing Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 462
(1994)). The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the statement by the defendant, “I should have an
4
attorney,” was not a clear request for an attorney because the defendant kept talking and asked the
detectives why he should help them. Id.
Appellant’s statement that he “probably shouldn’t say any more without a lawyer”
is similarly not a request for counsel. It is a statement of opinion regarding the wisdom of continuing
to talk. Appellant made the observation, then continued to talk without prompting from the police.
The police did not violate appellant’s constitutional rights, and the trial court did not err by
overruling appellant’s motion to suppress.
The trial court did not err by overruling appellant’s objection to the in-car video.
Appellant objected to the admission of a video recording from a patrol car showing
Mrs. Samuelson talking to police about appellant’s assault that led her to call for help. Appellant
contends that allowing the jury to hear her statements violated his Sixth Amendment right to
confront witnesses against him as well as the hearsay exclusion.
We review a ruling on the admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion. Tillman
v. State, 354 S.W.3d 425, 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). We consider the ruling in light of what was
before the trial court at the time the ruling was made and uphold the trial court’s decision if it
lies within the zone of reasonable disagreement. Billodeau v. State, 277 S.W.3d 34, 38 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2009). Under the abuse of discretion standard, we affirm the trial court’s ruling under any
applicable theory of law. Bowley v. State, 310 S.W.3d 431, 434 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). We do this
even if the trial judge failed to give any reason or used the wrong reason for the ruling. Id.
The trial court admitted the statements under the excited-utterance exception to
the hearsay exclusion. See Tex. R. Evid. 803(2). This rule permits the admission of out-of-court
5
statements relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant is under the stress
of excitement caused by the event or condition. Id. Appellant argues that the statements were not
within this exception because they were made more than twenty minutes after his initial assault, that
any excitement had dissipated, and that Mrs. Samuelson was calm and collected by that point. The
trial court heard the previous 911 call in which Mrs. Samuelson stated that her son became enraged
when she would not give him money, would not let go of her car, and, after she tried to pepper spray
him, hit her repeatedly through the car window. The judge also heard testimony from a police officer
and two EMTs who described Mrs. Samuelson as shaken, nervous, distraught, trembling, scared,
and very frightened. The trial court also saw the video of the statement. Despite appellant’s contrary
assertion, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by determining that Mrs. Samuelson
was still “under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.” See Tex. R. Evid. 803(2).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the evidence under the excited-utterance
exception to the hearsay-exclusion rule.
As for appellant’s constitutional right to confront his mother in court, appellant lost
that right when he killed her. The doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing permits the introduction of
statements from a witness who has been “detained” or “kept away” by the “means or procurement”
of the defendant.1 Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 359-60 (2008). Equity bars a defendant from
complaining that he is unable to confront a witness whom he has intentionally made unavailable.
Id.; cf. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 62 (2004) (“accepting” the rule of forfeiture by
1
Although the trial court did not expressly rely on the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing,
we may explore whether it supports the trial court’s ruling. See Bowley v. State, 310 S.W.3d 431,
434 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
6
wrongdoing). Appellant told police that he saw his mother talking to police and realized that he was
never going to see the light of day again, at which point he decided to kill her and did so.2 While he
may have given additional reasons for killing his mother, the record supports a conclusion that he
at least in part killed her to keep her from talking to police about the assault and testifying at trial.
Any error was harmless.
Even if the trial court’s admission of the challenged statements could be found
erroneous, we conclude that the record renders any of the asserted errors harmless. See Tex. R. App.
P. 44.2(a). A court of appeals must reverse for any preserved error subject to harmless-error review
that violated an appellant’s constitutional rights unless it determines beyond a reasonable doubt that
the error did not contribute to the conviction or punishment. Hernandez v. State, 60 S.W.3d 106,
108 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).
The presence of overwhelming untainted evidence favoring the judgment can be a
factor in determining that constitutional error was harmless. Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250,
254 (1969). Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352, 357 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). We do not focus on the
propriety of the outcome, but calculate, to the degree possible, the probable impact of the error on
the conviction in light of the existence of other evidence. See Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103,
119 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). We ask if there was a reasonable possibility that the error, either alone
or in context, moved the jury from a state of nonpersuasion to one of persuasion. Id. We take into
account any and every circumstance apparent in the record that logically informs an appellate
2
He made this statement well before he commented that he probably should not say any
more without a lawyer.
7
determination whether, beyond a reasonable doubt, the error did not contribute to the conviction or
punishment. Snowden v. State, 353 S.W.3d 815, 822 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).
Even without considering the disputed evidence, there is overwhelming evidence to
support the conviction of appellant for murdering his mother while she was reporting his earlier
assault. EMTs and a police officer testified that they saw appellant drive his truck straight at his
mother, killing her. Appellant himself told police that he did it because she was talking to police
and was going to send him to prison, which supports finding that he killed her in retaliation for
her report. This evidence is more than sufficient to support the verdict. Although the substance of
Mrs. Samuelson’s statement to police added specific details supporting the retaliation charge, the
conviction is firmly supported without it through appellant’s own statements. See Anderson v. State,
717 S.W.2d 622, 628 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (no harm from admitting challenged evidence if the
admitted evidence is generally cumulative of other evidence introduced in the case).
Appellant contends that he himself made many inflammatory remarks about his
mother during the objected-to portions of his interview and that his mother’s statements provided
unfairly prejudicial details. He also points to statements he made that indicated that perhaps he had
different goals in mind when he drove his large truck over his mother on the gurney, like retaliation
for her perceived wrongs to him and merely causing her to suffer. These remarks and details
provided context, but did not invite the jury to stretch other evidence to wrongly find the elements
of retaliation and murder. If anything, they might have enticed the jury to conclude that his actions
were not in retaliation for her report to police or that he did not intend to kill her—alternate
8
conclusions that would have actually favored appellant. The unchallenged evidence supporting the
elements of the offense of capital murder was overwhelming.
We conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the admission of the evidence that
appellant contends should have been excluded did not contribute to his conviction or his sentence
and did not otherwise affect his substantial rights.3 See Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(a), (b).
CONCLUSION
We affirm the judgment.
Jeff Rose, Justice
Before Justices Puryear, Rose, and Goodwin
Affirmed
Filed: August 21, 2014
Do Not Publish
3
Because appellant was convicted of capital murder, but the State did not seek the death
penalty, the trial court had no choice but to assess a punishment of life in prison without parole. See
Tex. Penal Code § 12.31(a).
9
-----
http://scaredmonkeys.net/index.php?topic=13527.0;wap2
MuffyBee:
He beat his elderly mother and then ran over her on the stretcher before being transported to the hospital. He killed her. ::MonkeyNoNo:: He needs ::MonkeyHang:: He could have killed the emergency workers too. ::MonkeyNoNo::
http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/austin/trial-opens-son-charged-in-moms-death
Trial opens; son charged in mom's death
Family had history of violence
September 18, 2012
Virginia Samuelson
Shaun David Samuelson
AUSTIN (KXAN) - A jury is in place and the trial under way Tuesday in the case of a 45-year-old man accused of running down his mother as she lay on a stretcher, about to be taken to a hospital.
The 72-year-old woman died that night, and her son, Shaun David Samuelson, is on trial, charged with murder - intentionally causing death.
On the evening of Sept. 29, Austin police and emergency medical workers were treating Virginia Samuelson at the intersection of Lamar Boulevard and Lamar Square Drive. Police said she was injured by her son, Shaun David Samuelson, at that location during a fight about money. She suffered injuries to her face and neck, according to Austin-Travis County Emergency Medical Services workers who responded to the scene.
EMS was taking photographs of Virginia Samuelson's injuries as she lay on a gurney, when they heard the sound of a truck accelerating toward them. The vehicle did not slow down and collided with the gurney, dragging the woman and the gurney beneath the truck for about 30 feet.
At the time, police said Shaun Samuelson got out of the vehicle and ran, but officers caught up to him.
::snipping2::
According to public records, the family had a history of violence. A protective order was filed in 2006 after an incident wherein Shaun Samuelson was accused of hitting his mother in the head with a metal rod after an argument concerning the remodeling of his condominium.
The case is before Judge Jim Coronado in the 427th Criminal District Court.
MuffyBee:
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/courts/entries/2012/09/18/jury_watches_vidoe_of_killing.html
Jury watches video of killing as capital murder trial begins
September 18, 2012
A Travis County courtroom stood still this morning as a jury watched the rarest of evidence in a capital murder case: video of the killing.
It came from the dashboard camera of Austin police officer Joseph Hernandez, who had come to an Exxon station on South Lamar Boulevard last year after Virginia Samuelson called 911 to say she had been beaten by her mentally ill son.
Hernandez was heard on the video interviewing Samuelson, 72, about the incident. She told him that her son, Shaun Samuelson - who she said lived in Buda, had schizoaffective disorder and was “just plain mean” - had struck her in the face when she met him across the street earlier that evening to give him money. She told Hernandez that Shaun Samuelson drove a large black pickup.
Minutes later - at 7:18 p.m. on Sept. 29, 2011 — the loud screeching of tires rang out on the video.
Hernandez’s car had been pointed away from Virginia Samuelson so it did not show that she had been loaded onto a stretcher when a black pickup driven by her son came speeding at her, Hernandez testified.
The video did show the pickup come into view and drive onto nearby Lamar Square Drive. The stretcher was caught under the front part of Shaun Samuelson’s Ford pickup and a body fell into the road.
Moments later, an officer approached the body and repeatedly exclaimed: “Oh, my God.”
The body was that of Virginia Samuelson, who was pronounced dead by a paramedic moments later.
::snipping2::
Two paramedics and police officers, including Hernandez, narrowly escaped being hit by the truck, Hernandez said.
Samuelson, 46, drove a short distance down Lamar Square Drive before he stopped, got out of the car and raised his hands in the air before being quickly arrested, Hernandez said.
Prosecutor Judy Shipway told jurors during her opening statement that after his arrest, Shaun Samuelson told police that he saw his mother drive to the convenience store and “realized that I was not going to see the light of day again.”
Quoting Samuelson, Shipway continued: “I was not going to let that bitch … get away with it — healthy, happy and free while I was in prison.”
Samuelson was temporarily declared incompetent to stand trial in November but later was declared competent. His mental health records are not publicly available.
flutter1:
From an earlier story, a little more background:
http://www.kvue.com/news/Neighbors-remember-Woman-killed-when-son-ran-over-her-stretcher-130891123.html
Quote
Neighbors remember mother police say was killed by son
by SHELTON GREEN / KVUE News
Bio | Email | Follow: @SheltonG_KVUE
kvue.com
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 10:11 PM
Updated Friday, Sep 30 at 10:11 PM
::snipping2::According to Austin police Virginia Samuelson and her son 45 year old Shaun Samuelson met in a neutral setting at an Exxon Station on South Lamar. Neighbors say that’s because Samuelson’s son had beaten his own mother on at least one occasion and she was afraid to let him inside her house.
The meeting took a turn for the worse around 7pm Thursday. Witnesses saw him reaching into his mother’s car window while he was beating her.
Shaun Samuelson took off before paramedics arrived to tend to his mother’s injuries. Police said he came back to the location and sped his truck toward his mother, who at this point was strapped onto a stretcher on her way to the hospital. ::snipping2::
What a POS. This "son" is evidently leaching off his mother, beats her as she is trying to give him money, and then runs over her as she is laying helplessly strapped to a gurney.
I hope he gets the needle and quick; but he will milk the system, just like he milked his mother. RIP, Ginger. ::MonkeyAngel::
MuffyBee:
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/courts/entries/2012/09/19/samuelson_guilty_of_capital_mu.html
Samuelson guilty of capital murder for driving into his mother while she was on stretcher
September 19, 2012
A Travis County jury today found Shaun Samuelson guilty of capital murder for driving into his mother with his truck while she was being loaded onto an EMS gurney in South Austin last year.
Samuelson, 46, received an automatic life sentence in the killing of Virginia Samuelson, 72. Prosecutors did not seek the death penalty.
Prosecutor Judy Shipway predicted in opening statements that jurors would have no problem finding Shaun Samuelson guilty and she was apparently correct. The jury returned its verdict after deliberating about 30 minutes.
During one full day of testimony they saw video of Samuelson driving into his mother and of a police interview in which he said that he drove into her on purpose.
“I was trying to hit my mom,” he told Austin police detectives Chris Smyth and Will White. “I felt nothing but such great rage toward her at that point.”
Samuelson, who lived in Buda and had not worked since the early 1990s, said he suffered from a hypersensitivity to certain chemicals, did not work and received a government assistance check. He said his mother had supplemented that with about $300 a month but that she had always patronized him, didn’t take his illness seriously and had not purchased him some land to put his trailer on or a washing machine.
He met her mother in a parking lot near Lamar Square Drive and South Lamar Boulevard on Sept. 29, 2011, so she could give him money, according to evidence at the trial.
They got into an argument, part of which Samuelson recorded on his cell phone, and after Virginia Samuelson refused to give him money, Shaun Samuelson hit her repeatedly in the face and head. In the video, shown to jurors, Shaun Samuelson said: “I will admit that I have no respect whatsoever for you,” he told her, “but it is because you have not shown me the respect that every human being deserves.”
His voice was angry and he did not allow his mother to speak. It cuts off before she was attacked.
::snipping2::
Shaun Samuelson admitted to police that he had beaten his mother.
“I attacked her I won’t deny that… I grabbed her head and pulled her over and she started screaming, and I hit her in the head several times with the back of my hand … and told her you horrible bitch, you horrible goddamn tormenting bitch.”
He explained to White and Smith that he had backed away because he had gotten his rage out, but then he saw her go to the convenience store at the gas station.
“I realized then I wasn’t going to see the light of day again… I wasn’t going to let that bitch get away with that. I wasn’t going to let her be healthy and happy and free while I was in prison.”
Samuelson was convicted of capital murder — committing murder in the course of committing the felony crime of retaliation, which makes it a crime to harm someone who has reported a crime.
More...
MuffyBee:
http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/austin/jury-mulling-sons-fate-in-death-of-mom
Son guilty in murder of mother, 72
Drove into her ambulance gurney after fight
September 19, 2012
AUSTIN (KXAN) - The man charged with killing his mother by running over her while she was on an ambulance gurney last year was convicted Wednesday of capital murder. Shaun David Samuelson will serve life in prison without the possibility of parole.
The verdict and sentence came down a short time after the case went to the jury. Prosecutors did not seek the death penalty. The trial started on Tuesday.
::snipping2::
flutter1:
Quote from: MuffyBee on September 19, 2012, 02:55:32 PM
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/courts/entries/2012/09/19/samuelson_guilty_of_capital_mu.html
Samuelson guilty of capital murder for driving into his mother while she was on stretcher
September 19, 2012
A Travis County jury today found Shaun Samuelson guilty of capital murder for driving into his mother with his truck while she was being loaded onto an EMS gurney in South Austin last year.
Samuelson, 46, received an automatic life sentence in the killing of Virginia Samuelson, 72. Prosecutors did not seek the death penalty.
Prosecutor Judy Shipway predicted in opening statements that jurors would have no problem finding Shaun Samuelson guilty and she was apparently correct. The jury returned its verdict after deliberating about 30 minutes.
During one full day of testimony they saw video of Samuelson driving into his mother and of a police interview in which he said that he drove into her on purpose.
“I was trying to hit my mom,” he told Austin police detectives Chris Smyth and Will White. “I felt nothing but such great rage toward her at that point.”
Samuelson, who lived in Buda and had not worked since the early 1990s, said he suffered from a hypersensitivity to certain chemicals, did not work and received a government assistance check. He said his mother had supplemented that with about $300 a month but that she had always patronized him, didn’t take his illness seriously and had not purchased him some land to put his trailer on or a washing machine.
He met her mother in a parking lot near Lamar Square Drive and South Lamar Boulevard on Sept. 29, 2011, so she could give him money, according to evidence at the trial.
They got into an argument, part of which Samuelson recorded on his cell phone, and after Virginia Samuelson refused to give him money, Shaun Samuelson hit her repeatedly in the face and head. In the video, shown to jurors, Shaun Samuelson said: “I will admit that I have no respect whatsoever for you,” he told her, “but it is because you have not shown me the respect that every human being deserves.”
His voice was angry and he did not allow his mother to speak. It cuts off before she was attacked.
::snipping2::
Shaun Samuelson admitted to police that he had beaten his mother.
“I attacked her I won’t deny that… I grabbed her head and pulled her over and she started screaming, and I hit her in the head several times with the back of my hand … and told her you horrible bitch, you horrible goddamn tormenting bitch.”
He explained to White and Smith that he had backed away because he had gotten his rage out, but then he saw her go to the convenience store at the gas station.
“I realized then I wasn’t going to see the light of day again… I wasn’t going to let that bitch get away with that. I wasn’t going to let her be healthy and happy and free while I was in prison.”
Samuelson was convicted of capital murder — committing murder in the course of committing the felony crime of retaliation, which makes it a crime to harm someone who has reported a crime.
More...
BBM
So let me get this straight, he kills her because his actions are going to send him to jail. Did I get that right?
What adult child expects his elderly mother to supplement his monthly income, buy him land, and household appliances? What a whiney 3 year-old he is!
Now he is going to live off of the taxpayers of the state of Texas for the rest of his miserable life. I don't want to wish premature death on anyone, but he can feel free fall on a shank just any time soon. ::MonkeyMad::
MuffyBee:
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/crime-law/conviction-confirmed-for-man-who-killed-mother-on-/ng6mc/
Conviction confirmed for man who killed mother on stretcher
August 21, 2014
The Third Court of Appeals has affirmed the 2012 conviction of a man who was found guilty of capital murder for running over his mother with his pickup as medics were loading her onto a stretcher in South Austin.
Shaun David Samuelson, 48, had claimed that the trial court wrongly overruled his motion to suppress a recorded statement he made to police because he said police continued to question him despite his “unequivocal invocation of his right to counsel,” according to the appeals court opinion filed Thursday.
Samuelson also claimed that the trial court should not have overruled his objection to using as evidence video from the camera in a police officer’s patrol car that showed Samuelson’s mother saying that he had assaulted her.
“Even without considering the disputed evidence, there is overwhelming evidence to support the conviction of (Samuelson) for murdering his mother while she was reporting his earlier assault,” the opinion says. “EMTs and a police officer testified that they saw (Samuelson) drive his truck straight at his mother, killing her. (Samuelson) himself told police that he did it because she was talking to police and was going to send him to prison, which supports finding that he killed her in retaliation for her report. This evidence is more than sufficient to support the verdict.”
Samuelson was sentenced to life in prison on Sept. 19, 2012, after a jury spent about 30 minutes deliberating whether he was guilty of killing his mother, 72-year-old Virginia Samuelson.
::snipping3::
After the assault, she crossed the street to an Exxon station and called police, according to testimony heard during the trial, and officers soon arrived with paramedics. She told an officer that her son had struck her in the head about 20 times and she was later loaded onto a stretcher.
Samuelson then drove into his mother with a pickup, according to testimony, and the officer and two paramedics narrowly escaped being hit.
The stretcher became stuck underneath the truck, and Virginia Samuelson was pronounced dead minutes later.
Sister:
Quote from: MuffyBee on August 21, 2014, 02:46:01 PM
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/crime-law/conviction-confirmed-for-man-who-killed-mother-on-/ng6mc/
Conviction confirmed for man who killed mother on stretcher
August 21, 2014
The Third Court of Appeals has affirmed the 2012 conviction of a man who was found guilty of capital murder for running over his mother with his pickup as medics were loading her onto a stretcher in South Austin.
Shaun David Samuelson, 48, had claimed that the trial court wrongly overruled his motion to suppress a recorded statement he made to police because he said police continued to question him despite his “unequivocal invocation of his right to counsel,” according to the appeals court opinion filed Thursday.
Samuelson also claimed that the trial court should not have overruled his objection to using as evidence video from the camera in a police officer’s patrol car that showed Samuelson’s mother saying that he had assaulted her.
“Even without considering the disputed evidence, there is overwhelming evidence to support the conviction of (Samuelson) for murdering his mother while she was reporting his earlier assault,” the opinion says. “EMTs and a police officer testified that they saw (Samuelson) drive his truck straight at his mother, killing her. (Samuelson) himself told police that he did it because she was talking to police and was going to send him to prison, which supports finding that he killed her in retaliation for her report. This evidence is more than sufficient to support the verdict.”
Samuelson was sentenced to life in prison on Sept. 19, 2012, after a jury spent about 30 minutes deliberating whether he was guilty of killing his mother, 72-year-old Virginia Samuelson.
::snipping3::
After the assault, she crossed the street to an Exxon station and called police, according to testimony heard during the trial, and officers soon arrived with paramedics. She told an officer that her son had struck her in the head about 20 times and she was later loaded onto a stretcher.
Samuelson then drove into his mother with a pickup, according to testimony, and the officer and two paramedics narrowly escaped being hit.
The stretcher became stuck underneath the truck, and Virginia Samuelson was pronounced dead minutes later.
Thank goodness!
::justice2nj2::