Bedolla, Jose Angel
2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 959
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Jose Angel Bedolla was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (allegedly running over victim with his car) and leaving the scene; jury sentenced him to prison and fines.
- Victim Janniful Walton testified she fell from the car and was run over (once or twice); Bedolla testified he acted in self‑defense after Walton allegedly threatened him with a knife and he panicked while driving off.
- Indictment charged Bodella with causing bodily injury by running over Walton with a motor vehicle (deadly weapon); it did not charge injury from the earlier punching incident.
- Defense requested two jury instructions: necessity (granted) and self‑defense on the assault with a deadly weapon (denied by the trial court at the charge conference).
- The court of appeals held error was not preserved because the defense did not specify self‑defense with deadly force (there was evidence of both non‑deadly and deadly force), and affirmed; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the court of appeals, holding the request was sufficiently specific given the charged offense was limited to conduct involving deadly force; remanded for merits review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bedolla) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bedolla preserved error complaining trial court refused to submit a self‑defense instruction for deadly force | Bedolla: He expressly requested a "self‑defense on the assault with a deadly weapon," which, given the indictment charging only deadly‑force conduct, put the court on notice of Penal Code §9.32 self‑defense | State: Request was ambiguous; counsel did not specify self‑defense with deadly force or submit a proposed instruction, so trial judge was not plainly alerted to which theory was sought | Court reversed court of appeals: preservation satisfied because, given the charged offense (deadly‑weapon assault), the request reasonably and unambiguously sought deadly‑force self‑defense; remanded for merits review |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. State, 235 S.W.3d 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (a general request for self‑defense does not preserve separate, unasserted statutory defenses absent notice to the trial judge)
- Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (to preserve error a party must timely inform the trial judge what relief is sought and why)
- Carmen v. State, 276 S.W.3d 538 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (contextual review of requests may be appropriate to discern a party’s intended jury instruction)