Taylor-White v. State, 04-25-00077-CR, February 25, 2026.
On appeal from the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas.
Synopsis
The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed a murder conviction under the law of parties, holding that a defendant’s verbal commands to a primary shooter constitute legally sufficient evidence of intent to promote or assist the offense. The court clarified that when a defendant issues directives such as “light him up,” the jury serves as the sole arbiter of whether those words manifest a specific intent to assist in the crime or represent mere tactical threats.
Relevance to Family Law
While Taylor-White is a criminal appeal, its analysis of “party liability” via verbal conduct is a powerful tool for family law litigators handling “violence by proxy” scenarios. In high-conflict custody or divorce litigation, parties often utilize third parties—new paramours, family members, or even older children—to harass, threaten, or assault the opposing party. This holding reinforces that a client does not need to be the physical actor to be held responsible for the result; proving that a party “directed” or “encouraged” the conduct through specific verbal commands is sufficient to establish intent. This is critical when seeking a finding of family violence under Tex. Fam. Code § 71.004 or arguing for the “cruelty” ground in a fault-based divorce.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
On September 2, 2022, Taylor-White and an associate, Michael Randle, entered an apartment in San Antonio seeking an individual named Mohammed. Randle was armed with a firearm. Inside the apartment, they encountered Daniel Murphy and his partner, Zakira Campbell. While Randle held Murphy at gunpoint, Taylor-White took a leadership role, issuing orders and questioning the couple regarding Mohammed’s whereabouts.
When the couple failed to provide satisfactory answers, Taylor-White became agitated. Witnesses testified that Taylor-White commanded Randle to “[e]mpty a clip on his ass” and “[l]ight him up.” As Randle exited the apartment, he fired multiple shots, killing Murphy. Immediately following the shooting, Taylor-White grabbed Randle’s arm and the two fled the scene together. Taylor-White was subsequently convicted of murder under the law of parties and sentenced to forty years in prison.
Issues Decided
- Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the specific intent to promote or assist in the commission of the murder.
- Whether the trial court violated due process by failing to consider the full range of punishment during the sentencing phase.
Rules Applied
- Texas Penal Code § 7.01(a): Establishes that a person is criminally responsible as a party to an offense if the offense is committed by their own conduct, by the conduct of another for which they are responsible, or both.
- Texas Penal Code § 7.02(a)(2): Provides that a person is responsible for the conduct of another if, acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, they solicit, encourage, direct, aid, or attempt to aid the other person.
- Legal Sufficiency Standard (Jackson v. Virginia): The court reviews evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Inference of Intent: Intent is rarely proven by direct testimony and must typically be inferred from the acts, words, and conduct of the accused before, during, and after the offense.
Application
The Fourth Court of Appeals rejected Taylor-White’s argument that his verbal commands were merely “threats” intended to scare the victims into talking rather than directives to kill. The court emphasized that under a Jackson v. Virginia review, the appellate court cannot re-evaluate the weight and credibility of the evidence. The jury, as the factfinder, was entitled to believe the witness testimony regarding the specific phrases used—”light him up” and “empty a clip.”
The court’s narrative focused on the totality of the circumstances: Taylor-White accompanied the shooter to the scene, exerted control over the victims, issued the fatal commands when he became frustrated, and fled with the shooter while physically guiding him away. These combined actions provided a rational basis for the jury to conclude that it was Taylor-White’s conscious objective for Randle to shoot the victim.
Holding
The court held that the evidence was legally sufficient to support a conviction for murder under the law of parties. The court noted that a defendant’s verbal encouragement and directives, when coupled with presence at the scene and flight thereafter, are sufficient to establish the requisite intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense.
On the second issue, the court held that Taylor-White failed to show the trial court did not consider the full range of punishment. The sentence was within the statutory limits, and there was no evidence that the trial court arbitrarily refused to consider mitigating factors or the entire punishment range.
Practical Application
In the family law context, litigators can use the logic of Taylor-White to impute the conduct of third parties to a respondent or spouse:
- Protective Orders: When a respondent’s friend or relative commits an act of violence, use the “party liability” framework to argue that the respondent’s verbal encouragement (“go get her,” “show him what happens”) makes the respondent the statutory “actor” for the purposes of a protective order.
- Custody/Best Interest: Under Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004, evidence of “proxy violence” directed by a parent should be treated as evidence of that parent’s own history of violence, regardless of whether they personally committed the physical assault.
- Fault-Based Divorces: Use verbal directives captured on Ring cameras or text messages to prove “cruelty” of a nature that renders living together insupportable, even if the spouse was not the one who physically damaged property or committed an assault.
Checklists
Proving Violence by Proxy
- Identify Verbal Directives: Document the specific phrasing used by the party (e.g., “handle them,” “get what’s mine”).
- Analyze Sequence of Events: Establish that the physical actor only moved to commit the act after the command or encouragement was given.
- Document Post-Act Conduct: Did the party flee with the actor? Did they provide financial or logistical support after the incident?
- Establish Presence: Even if the party stayed in the car or the doorframe, document their proximity and “watchman” or “director” role.
Defending Against Party Liability Allegations
- Alternative Interpretations: Characterize the statements as hyperbole or attempts to de-escalate (though Taylor-White makes this a difficult jury question).
- Intervening Acts: Argue that the primary actor’s conduct was an independent impulse that exceeded the scope of any “encouragement” offered.
- Withdrawal: Document any attempts by your client to stop the primary actor or assist the victim after the act occurred.
Citation
Taylor-White v. State, No. 04-25-00077-CR (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 25, 2026, no pet. h.).
Full Opinion
The full opinion can be found here: Full Opinion Link
Family Law Crossover
This ruling can be weaponized in a Texas divorce or custody case by bridging the gap between a parent’s “bad attitude” and actual “bad acts.” Often, a parent remains technically “clean” by having others do their dirty work—sending a new boyfriend to intimidate an ex at an exchange or having a family member harass the other parent. Under the Taylor-White framework, a family law attorney can argue that the parent who “orders the hit” (verbally or via text) is legally responsible for the resulting family violence. This is a game-changer for evidentiary hearings where the respondent argues, “I didn’t touch her; my brother did.” If the respondent said, “light her up” or “take care of her,” Taylor-White provides the appellate backbone to hold the respondent accountable for the proxy’s violence.
~~743cf088-b832-4882-b62c-099bfa3d17ee~~
Share this content: