Beltran, Ricardo v. State
2015 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1061
Tex. Crim. App.2015Background
- Ricardo Beltran was convicted of murder and sentenced to 70 years; he requested a "sudden passion" instruction at punishment which would cap punishment at 20 years if proven.
- Beltran testified he passed out after heavy drug use and was awakened to Sheldon McKnight licking his anus and pushing his face into a pillow; Beltran screamed, panicked, and a struggle ensued during which Victor Ramos stabbed McKnight.
- Beltran denied stabbing or intending to kill McKnight; he testified he grabbed and held McKnight during the struggle and urged Ramos to get help, then later participated in taking property from the scene.
- At trial the jury rejected self-defense, convicted Beltran of murder (lesser-included of capital), and assessed 70 years; the trial court denied the sudden passion instruction at punishment.
- The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the record lacked evidence that Beltran caused McKnight’s death under the immediate influence of sudden passion.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals granted review and held Beltran was entitled to a sudden passion instruction; it reversed the court of appeals and remanded for Almanza harm analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Beltran) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Beltran was entitled to a "sudden passion" instruction at punishment | Beltran’s testimony of being sexually assaulted, panicking, screaming, and acting in terror minimally supports sudden passion causally linked to the homicide | State: record shows conscious, thoughtful action by Beltran; no evidence Ramos was provoked or that Beltran caused the death under sudden passion | Court held Beltran raised sufficient evidence of sudden passion (terror), provocation by decedent, causal link, and acted before regaining cool reflection; instruction required |
| Whether the law of parties permits relying on co‑defendant’s conduct to deny or supply a sudden passion instruction | Beltran: sudden passion should be measured by defendant’s own conduct; a party can claim mitigation even if convicted under parties theory | State: sudden passion not shown because Ramos (the stabber) lacked provocation or evidence of passion | Court held the law of parties does not import co‑actor’s mental state into the punishment-phase sudden passion inquiry; focus is on defendant’s own conduct and state of mind |
Key Cases Cited
- Wooten v. State, 400 S.W.3d 601 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (explains standards for when a sudden passion instruction must be submitted at punishment)
- Webb v. State, 760 S.W.2d 263 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (law of parties does not apply at punishment; punishment focuses on defendant's own conduct)
- Green v. State, 840 S.W.2d 394 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (same principle: sentencing phase requires focus on appellant's behavior and intent, not co-defendant’s)
- Rogers v. State, 991 S.W.2d 263 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (relevance at punishment is what helps the jury determine appropriate sentence)
- Trevino v. State, 100 S.W.3d 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (jury's rejection of self‑defense at guilt phase does not preclude sudden passion at punishment)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (standard for harm analysis when a jury instruction error is alleged)