Full Opinion

Opinion issued November 6, 2026 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00353-CR ——————————— DARON SCOTT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 56th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 24-CR-1822 MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury found Appellant Daron Scott guilty of murder. We affirm. Background Late at night on December 30, 2020, Derion Chambers and Winston McGill sat in a car at a gas station when another car pulled up and fired multiple shots at them. Chambers was killed, and McGill was injured. The car from which the shots were fired exited the gas station immediately in front of a police officer on patrol in his cruiser. The officer pulled the car over. As he did so, one of car’s occupants jumped out of the passenger-side and ran away. The officer stayed with the vehicle until other officers arrived on the scene. They detained the remaining two occupants of the car, which included Deryus Phillips, who is Appellant’s cousin. The officers attempted to search for the person who had fled but could not find him. During a police interview on the night of the shooting, Phillips stated that a person known as “LA” and “Daron” was the shooter who had jumped from the car. At trial, Deryus testified Appellant goes by the nickname “LA” but said other persons do, too. He also testified that he was intoxicated on the night of the shooting and did not remember the interview, that he blamed Appellant to protect himself, and that he would be “lying” if he said Appellant was the shooter. Appellant was indicted for Chambers’s murder. The jury found him guilty and assessed punishment at seventy years’ confinement. The trial court rendered judgment on the verdict. Analysis Appellant argues the evidence is legally insufficient to support the judgment and the State made improper jury argument. 2 A. Evidence legally sufficient Under the familiar standard for legal-sufficiency review, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and defer to the jury’s determinations regarding witness credibility and conflicting facts. See McPherson v. State, 677 S.W.3d 663, 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023). Appellant argues the evidence is insufficient to support a finding he was the shooter. But the State presented—without objection—the video of Phillips’s interview in which he said Appellant was the shooter.1 While Phillips recanted this statement at trial, inconsistencies between a witness’s trial testimony and his pretrial statements (admitted without objection) are for the jury to resolve. See id.; Davis v. State, ___ S.W.3d ____, No. 01-24-00301-CR, 2026 WL 1139724, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 28, 2026, pet. ref’d) (“[A]ny uncertainty in Wyble’s pretrial identification, as compared to her in-court identification of Davis as Sanford’s murderer, was for the jury to resolve.”). Moreover, evidence corroborated that Appellant was the shooter, including cell-tower data showing the location of Appellant’s phone the night of the shooting and Appellant’s text messages before the shooting saying he needed a “tool,” 1 The standards for legal-sufficiency review are the same when the evidence considered is accomplice-witness testimony. See Simon v. State, No. 01-24- 00490-CR, 2026 WL 1870838, at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 30, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.; not designated for publication). 3 which is slang for a gun, and shortly after the shooting saying he needed money for transportation. Considering all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, it is legally sufficient to support the verdict. We overrule this issue. B. Closing argument not erroneous Appellant next complains the State’s following, unobjected-to argument is structural error that requires reversal: You, as the jurors, have the duty to listen and reflect on that testimony and determine how much you think is credible - - if you believe all of it, a part of it, any of it. At the beginning of my case, I let you-all know that I wanted you to look at the totality of our case and determine if we have proven it beyond a reasonable doubt; and we have. But the statements are not erroneous, structural or otherwise. As already mentioned, the jury decides witness credibility, which “means that the jury can believe all, some, or none of a witness’s testimony.” Day v. State, 614 S.W.3d 121, 127 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020). We also overrule this issue. Conclusion We affirm the trial court’s judgment. Andrew Johnson Justice Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Morgan and Johnson. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 4