Whitney Chennell Caraway v. the State of Texas
CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)
Date FiledJuly 15, 2026
Docket04-25-00330-CR
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-25-00330-CR
Whitney Chennell CARAWAY,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 2024-CR-0984
Honorable Benjamin Robertson, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Lori Massey Brissette, Justice
Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice
Lori Massey Brissette, Justice
H. Todd McCray, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 15, 2026
AFFIRMED
On May 22, 2023, Appellant and Amanda Newton, now deceased, engaged in a fist fight.
When they first approached one another, Appellant revealed a crowbar and Newton brandished a
gun. Newton’s friend took the gun from her and walked away. Appellant asked another friend to
check Newton’s pockets to make sure she was unarmed and then taunted her to “run up on” her.
Newton obliged and the fist fight ensued. But, after a very brief fight, Newton began to bleed and
04-25-00330-CR
ended up dying of a stab wound to her neck. The jury found Appellant guilty of murder and she
was sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment.
Appellant asserts the only issue on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to support
a murder conviction “where the Appellant carried no weapon, showed no intent to kill, and the
sole impartial witness testified the altercation was a fist fight with no weapon used.” But in
presenting her appellate issue, Appellant assumes the record demonstrates that she “carried no
weapon.” Because we disagree and because we find the evidence is sufficient to support the
conviction, we affirm.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we determine whether any rational trier
of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Witcher
v. State, 678 S.W.3d 707, 709-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022). It is the responsibility of the jury, not
this court, to determine the witnesses’ credibility, weigh the evidence, resolve conflicts, and to
draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307,
319 (1979); Queeman v. State, 520 S.W.3d 616, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017); TEX. CODE CRIM.
PROC. art. 38.04. When determining whether an inference is reasonable, we look to the cumulative
force of all the evidence when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. Braughton v. State,
569 S.W.3d 592, 608 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). We will presume that the jury resolved any conflicts
in favor of the verdict. Id.
We measure the evidence by the elements of the offense as defined by the hypothetically
correct jury charge. Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Here, a person
commits the offense of murder if she (1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an
individual; or (2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to
-2-
04-25-00330-CR
human life that causes the death of an individual. TEX. PEN. CODE § 19.02(b)(1), (2). “Serious
bodily injury” means “bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death,
serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily
member or organ.” TEX. PEN. CODE § 1.07(a)(46).
Direct evidence of a culpable mental state is not required and is often not available. Hooper
v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). It is often inferred from the circumstances.
Romano v. State, 610 S.W.3d 30, 35 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020).
ANALYSIS
The evidence at trial established Appellant made sure Newton was unarmed before taunting
her to attack. Jade Gonzalez, Newton’s friend who took her gun and walked away, returned to the
scene after hearing Newton screaming. She saw Newton fall down and took her own shirt off to
cover the puncture wound. She testified it appeared she had been “stabbed in the neck.” The
autopsy report showed Newton suffered eleven sharp force injuries and that the wound on her neck
was fatal. Appellant admitted to Detective Raul Juarez that she fought back with a knife. Not only
did the detective testify to Appellant’s statement in that regard, but the jury heard a recording of
the conversation in which she stated she had a knife during the fight and would bring it to the
detective.
Based on this evidence, including the fact that Appellant made sure Newton was unarmed
while keeping a knife in her own hand and the repeated nature of the multiple stabbings, the jury
could have reasonably inferred that Appellant knowingly caused Newton’s death or intended to
cause serious bodily injury. For that reason, we affirm the trial court’s conviction.
Lori Massey Brissette, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
-3-