James Fulton mugshot (Courtesy of Smith County)

The Bulverde man convicted of criminally negligent homicide in the 2016 death of a Tyler woman is appealing his conviction and his lawyers presented oral arguments Tuesday to the 12th Court of Appeals.  

A Smith County jury found James Fulton, 43, guilty Dec. 1, 2017, and sentenced him to 10 years in prison for killing Haile Dawn Beasley in 2016. The jury also determined Fulton used a deadly weapon, his Dodge Ram pickup, to commit the crime when he drove into oncoming traffic, slamming into Beasley’s Ford Focus on Grande Boulevard.  

Fulton’s lawyers are asking the appellate court to consider the state’s insufficient evidence in demonstrating criminal negligence and what they are calling ineffective counsel at trial in the hourlong proceeding. His attorneys insist Fulton’s conduct was not a gross deviation from society norms nor did it constitute serious blameworthy conduct. 

Tuesday’s arguments were heard in an audio recording on the website of the 12th Court of Appeals.

The state asked the court to affirm the conviction because Fulton’s actions constitute blameworthy conduct and the jury’s verdict supported it.   

The state insisted Fulton’s alcohol consumption was a gross deviation of care and there was plenty of evidence he was impaired, had tunnel vision and only focused on a deer he thought he saw on the side of the road.  

Fulton’s defense attorneys also insisted he was represented by inefficient counsel at trial because the attorney didn’t cross-examine or impeach a witness who bartended at the Cascades and said Fulton came back to the bar months after the crash to drink beer.  

Fulton’s attorney insisted his client told his trial counsel that he didn’t go back to the club but the trial counsel chose not to develop that evidence or let the bartender know records didn’t show any evidence of Fulton’s credit card being used at the bar.  

The state agreed that the bartender’s testimony harmed Fulton because the jury believed her.

The state insisted it didn’t make sense for the witness to lie about the incident because her only reward for doing that would have been attention, to avenge a victim she didn’t know, or to punish a defendant she didn’t know. The state said a person would have to be mentally ill or a pathological liar to go out of her way to lie about it.  

The court will consider the arguments and make a decision at a later date.