Alonzo v. State, 353 S.W.3d 778

Alonzo and Rocha, both inmates, fought on June 30, 2006; Alonzo claimed Rocha attacked with a cable and a spike, and that he only wrestled and that Rocha died from the struggle.
Jury charged two counts: murder with lesser included offenses (manslaughter, aggravated assault) and a separate count for possession of a deadly weapon in a penal institution; self-defense instruction asked jurors to acquit on Count I if self-defense proven.
During deliberations, jurors asked questions about applicability of self-defense to the lesser offenses; the trial court stated self-defense does not apply to manslaughter or aggravated assault in certain scenarios.
Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, holding that self-defense could not negate manslaughter and that conviction on the lesser included offenses was proper under their interpretation of the law.
This Court granted review to reconsider whether justification defenses can apply to lesser offenses and whether self-defense can justify a reduction in charges when the greater offense is acquitted against a justification defense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does self-defense preclude lesser offenses after acquittal on the greater offense?	Alonzo argues self-defense is a Chapter 9 justification that, if proven beyond reasonable doubt, requires acquittal on all counts in Count I.	State contends justification does not bar conviction for lesser offenses when the greater offense may be split.	Yes, trial court erred; justification must lead to acquittal of all Count I charges if undisproved.
Can justification defenses apply to reckless offenses (manslaughter)?	Alonzo asserts justification can be raised to defend against reckless offenses.	State argues justification does not apply to offenses defined by recklessness.	Yes, justification applies to reckless offenses; not limited to intentional/knowing offenses.
Must deadly self-defense require intent to kill?	Alonzo testified he did not intend to kill, but to defend, which should be enough for self-defense.	State contends intent to kill is required for self-defense to be applicable to deadly force.	No; deadly force is justified where reasonably believed necessary, regardless of actual intent to kill.
Did the jury instructions and responses misstate the law?			Court remands for harm analysis; holds error in allowing lesser offenses under self-defense when greater offense acquitted.

Nevarez v. State, 270 S.W.3d 691 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2008) (recognizes limits on self-defense in murder contexts)
Martinez v. State, 16 S.W.3d 845 (Tex. App.-Houston 2000) (discusses self-defense and lesser-included offenses)
Avila v. State, 954 S.W.2d 830 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1997) (addresses self-defense and manslaughter charges)
Daniell v. State, 848 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. Cr. App. 1993) (trial court responses to jury questions treated as supplementary instruction)
Willis v. State, 790 S.W.2d 307 (Tex. Cr. App. 1990) (supports entitlement to self-defense instruction when evidence supports defense)
Boget v. State, 74 S.W.3d 23 (Tex. Cr. App. 2002) (interpretation of self-defense statutes to encourage restraint)