Anthony Torres Deleon v. State
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 2984
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Anthony Torres De Leon was convicted of murder and sentenced to 23 years; verdict included a punishment phase with a sudden passion instruction.
- The State presented evidence of a fatal stabbing at a Bexar County apartment complex during a dispute involving De Leon, De La Garza, Adan, Arredondo, and others.
- Arredondo testified De Leon threatened De La Garza and appeared to stab him with a shiny object before the stabbing, but he later recanted under cross-examination.
- De Leon claimed self-defense and defense of others, alleging De La Garza attacked Adan and threatened him; the defense also claimed fear from prior encounters.
- The defense acknowledged lying to police; the State highlighted credibility issues and inconsistent statements by De Leon.
- The jury rejected sudden passion and convicted De Leon; the appellate court applied factual sufficiency review to evaluate the sudden passion issue and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of sudden passion was against the weight of the evidence | De Leon | De Leon | No reversible error; not manifestly unjust |
| Standard of review for sudden passion challenges when burden of proof rests on defendant | De Leon relies on Meraz to require factual sufficiency review | State urges different sufficiency standard | Factual sufficiency standard applies; not manifestly unjust |
| Whether sudden passion arose from adequate cause | De Leon testified to defense and fear from prior attack | Arredondo's testimony contradicts De Leon and supports lack of sudden passion | Evidence supported jury’s finding; no great weight reversal |
| Whether the jury could reasonably disbelieve De Leon's account and credit Arredondo | De Leon portrayed as victim; fear and prior attack justify sudden passion | Credibility issues undermine De Leon's account | Jury free to credit Arredondo; no manifest injustice |
| Whether the trial court correctly instructed on sudden passion and related standards | Instruction allowed reduction to second-degree felony if sudden passion proven | Correct application of law and standard; no error | Instruction proper; no error in the charge |
Key Cases Cited
- Meraz v. State, 785 S.W.2d 146 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (factual sufficiency review for preponderance-based issues)
- Daniels v. State, 645 S.W.2d 459 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (fear must reach terror level affecting cool reflection)
- Hernandez v. State, 127 S.W.3d 206 (Tex. App.—Hous. [1st Dist.] 2003) (sudden passion requires more than simple fear or anger)
- Trevino v. State, 157 S.W.3d 818 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005) (defendant’s credibility and prior statements matter for sufficiency review)
- Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (standard for reviewing weight and credibility of witnesses)