Guzman-Perez v. State

Summary

The court affirmed the appellant’s convictions for malice murder and concealing the death of another. It held that the circumstantial evidence, including the appellant’s inconsistent statements, concealment of the body, and physical evidence linking him to the crime, was constitutionally sufficient and excluded his proposed accident hypothesis. It also held that counsel’s decision not to retain a forensic-pathology expert was reasonable trial strategy and therefore did not establish ineffective assistance.