Branigan, Mark, PD-0785-15

On August 2, 2012, Mark Branigan was indicted for the murder of Danny Lafedge; jury convicted him and assessed 40 years after the jury found a repeat-offender enhancement true.
Prosecution presented multiple eyewitnesses who testified Branigan took a Hi-Point 9mm from an apartment, was agitated, brandished and loaded the gun, and then shot Lafedge in a parking lot; several witnesses said Lafedge was unarmed and Branigan continued to shoot after Lafedge fell.
Witnesses reported Branigan made post-shooting statements including admissions of shooting, disposal of the gun, and attempts to fabricate an alibi; police did not recover the weapon; gunshot-residue on Branigan was inconclusive while residue on Lafedge’s hands was consistent with being shot at.
Branigan gave a recorded interview denying he shot Lafedge and suggesting another shooter; at trial he testified he shot in self-defense, claiming Lafedge shot at him first from behind.
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in a published memorandum opinion; Branigan sought discretionary review on sufficiency of the evidence to disprove self-defense and on denial of a mistrial after a prosecutor’s comment that “loading a gun is not self-defense.”

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Branigan)	Held
Whether evidence was legally sufficient to disprove self-defense	Evidence (eyewitness testimony, statements, flight, attempts to fabricate an alibi, continued shooting) supports verdict and rejection of self-defense	Branigan contends witnesses conflicted, lack of physical evidence, and his testimony established self-defense	Affirmed: viewed in light most favorable to verdict, a rational juror could reject self-defense and find murder beyond a reasonable doubt
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying mistrial after prosecutor said loading a gun is “not self-defense”	The court’s prompt instruction to disregard and proper jury charge on self-defense cured any harm; error was not incurable	Branigan says prosecutor’s comment planted legal error and the instruction did not cure prejudice	Affirmed: denial of mistrial not an abuse of discretion; instruction presumed followed and less drastic remedies sufficed

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes due-process standard for sufficiency review)
Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589 (Tex. Crim. App.) (defendant has burden to produce some evidence of self-defense; then State must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt)
Ocon v. State, 284 S.W.3d 880 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standard for reviewing denial of mistrial — abuse of discretion; mistrial is extreme remedy)
Dobbs v. State, 434 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. Crim. App.) (discussion of evidentiary sufficiency review and deference to jury credibility determinations)