Alan Pozzerle v. State, 14-14-00610-CR

Pozzerle was convicted of murder in Harris County; the indictment alleged he killed William Johnson by striking him with a van and a club.
He claimed defense of property and later sought a sudden-passion instruction at punishment; the trial court denied both requests.
Evidence showed Johnson possessed Pozzerle’s recently stolen mobile phone for which Powell demanded $80; Pozzerle sought its return for work purposes.
Hickman, an accomplice, witnessed the confrontation and testified Pozzerle used force and struck Johnson; Pozzerle retrieved his phone afterward.
Pozzerle testified his mind was in turmoil during the incident and he feared for his phone; the jury ultimately sentenced him to 35 years’ imprisonment.
The appellate court addresses whether the trial court erred in denying (1) defense of property instruction under Penal Code sections 9.41-9.42 and (2) the sudden-passion instruction under section 19.02(d).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Defense of property instruction should have been given	Pozzerle raised defense of property since theft of his phone framed the entire incident	State contends 9.41-9.42 do not apply to this factual scenario	Trial court erred by denying defense of property instruction
Sudden-passion instruction at punishment should have been given	Evidence supported sudden passion due to adequate cause from phone theft and resulting anger	State argues evidence did not support sudden passion as required	Trial court erred by denying sudden-passion instruction at punishment

Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (two-pronged Almanza test for harm from charge error)
Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (framework for determining error exists in jury instruction cases)
Swearingen v. State, 270 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. App.-Austin 2008) (preservation and harm analysis for charge error)
Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (defensive issues must be charged if raised by evidence)
Rogers v. State, 105 S.W.3d 630 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (defensive instruction when raised by evidence)
Miller v. State, 815 S.W.2d 582 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (jury should decide credibility of defensive evidence)
Trevino v. State, 100 S.W.3d 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (self-defense and sudden passion intertwined; can warrant both instructions)
London v. State, 325 S.W.3d 197 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008) (sudden passion standard and adequate cause definition)
Benavides v. State, 992 S.W.2d 511 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999) (recognizes paired defense theories; evidence may support both)
Kunkle v. State, 771 S.W.2d 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (accomplice liability considerations in defense-related analysis)
Shaw v. State, 243 S.W.3d 647 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (reiterates obligation to submit defenses raised by evidence)