Alonzo v. State
328 S.W.3d 19
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Alonzo was indicted for murder and possession of a deadly weapon in a penal institution.
- He was convicted of the lesser-included offense of manslaughter and of possession of a deadly weapon in a penal institution.
- Both convictions were enhanced by a true finding on an enhancement and ordered to run consecutively to a life sentence for capital murder.
- The Stiles Unit, a maximum-security prison, was the setting of the June 30, 2006 altercation.
- Rocha died of a chest stab wound; a single correctional officer on duty testified seeing a shank in Alonzo's hand during the fight.
- Forensic and inmate-witness testimony formed the evidentiary basis for the manslaughter and weapon-in-penal-institution convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-defense instruction to manslaughter | Alonzo argues self-defense cannot be excluded for manslaughter. | State contends the instruction was correct given legal framework. | Not erroneous; self-defense cannot apply to manslaughter; instruction upheld. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for manslaughter given self-defense evidence | Evidence of self-defense undermines manslaughter conviction. | Jury could reject self-defense for manslaughter; evidence supports conviction. | Evidence legally and factually sufficient; issue overruled. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession of a deadly weapon in a penal institution | Evidence insufficient to prove possession/concealment. | State showed the weapon was possessed or controlled by Alonzo. | Evidence legally and factually sufficient; conviction affirmed. |
| Juror misconduct and motion for new trial | New trial warranted due to juror exposure to extraneous information. | Court properly instructed jurors; information not received by jury. | No abuse of discretion; denial of motion for new trial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daniell v. State, 848 S.W.2d 145 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993) (jury questions treated as supplemental instructions)
- Barrera v. State, 982 S.W.2d 415 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998) (egregious harm standard for misdirected jury responses)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984) (standards for Harm analysis on trial errors)
- Williams v. State, 937 S.W.2d 479 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996) (establishes standard for reviewing juror questions and instructions)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1980) (sufficiency review requires no reweighing of evidence by appellate court)
- Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005) (possession requires actual care/control and awareness)
- Bustamante v. State, 106 S.W.3d 738 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003) (test for juror misconduct includes whether evidence was received)
- Garza v. State, 82 S.W.3d 791 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2002) (receiving extraneous information varies by context)
- Gaona v. State, 733 S.W.2d 611 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1987) (method to determine if information was received by jurors)