Brian Darnell Johnson v. State, 01-15-00101-CR

Background

Defendant Brian Darnell Johnson was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and received 40 years’ imprisonment; he appealed.
Incident: after a confrontation at a pool hall, Johnson and Don Miles went outside; Johnson admitted firing a handgun and wounding Miles once.
Johnson’s theory at trial: Miles previously assaulted him inside, then outside pulled a 5–7 inch knife and cut/stabbed Johnson multiple times, so Johnson shot Miles in self-defense.
State’s witnesses: Miles admitted fighting with Johnson, acknowledged carrying a knife that night, but testified he thought Johnson shot him while Miles had turned his back; another witness saw Johnson shooting but did not confirm the knife.
No scientific/forensic evidence contradicted Johnson’s self-defense story; both sides initially avoided police and hospital involvement.
Procedural posture: Johnson argues (1) legal insufficiency because self-defense raises reasonable doubt; alternatively (2) multiple jury-charge errors (failure to give a 2.03(d) reasonable-doubt instruction on defensive issue, lack of an application paragraph for self-defense, omission of statutory presumptions under §§9.31/9.32 with required §2.05(b) language, and failure to instruct on no-duty-to-retreat provisions), and requests reversal/acquittal or a new trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Johnson)	Held / Relief Sought
1. Legal sufficiency re: self-defense	The State argued proof beyond reasonable doubt of aggravated assault elements (jury convicted).	Johnson contends evidence required reasonable doubt on whether his shooting was justified self-defense; thus evidence legally insufficient and court should acquit.	Johnson requests reversal and rendition of acquittal; trial court convicted (appeal pending).
2. Omission of §2.03(d) reasonable-doubt instruction on defensive issue	The State relied on the general reasonable-doubt charge and other instructions.	Johnson argues the court erred by not telling jurors that a reasonable doubt on self-defense requires acquittal; counsel failed to object so egregious-harm review applies.	Johnson seeks vacatur/remand for new trial, arguing egregious harm.
3. No application paragraph applying self-defense law to facts	The State relied on abstract self-defense instructions plus application to elements of offense.	Johnson argues the court failed to instruct jurors how to apply §§9.31/9.32 to the specific facts (contradiction between application to guilt and defensive theory), prejudicing his sole defense.	Johnson seeks new trial for charge omission (error preserved? counsel did not object; egregious-harm standard).
4. Failure to include statutory presumptions (§§9.31/9.32) and required §2.05(b) language	The State may argue presumptions were inapplicable or sufficiently covered elsewhere.	Johnson asserts evidence (knife, cutting, assault) entitled him to the presumption that his belief deadly force was necessary was reasonable and the jury should have been told the presumption and §2.05(b) consequences.	Johnson requests new trial/remand; alleges egregious harm from omission.
5. Failure to instruct on no-duty-to-retreat (§9.31(e)-(f), §9.32(c)-(d))	The State may rely on general self-defense law and closing arguments to address retreat issue.	Johnson argues the jury should have been instructed the defendant had no duty to retreat and jurors may not consider failure to retreat when assessing reasonableness; omission was prejudicial.	Johnson seeks new trial/remand; argues cumulative charge errors amount to egregious harm.

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes legal-sufficiency standard under due process)
Allen v. State, 253 S.W.3d 260 (discusses requirement to instruct jury that reasonable doubt on a defensive issue requires acquittal and appellate harm analysis)
Villarreal v. State, 453 S.W.3d 429 (analyzes omission of presumption instruction under §9.32 and Almanza harm factors)
Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (sets egregious-harm standard for unpreserved jury-charge error)
Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910 (addresses sufficiency review when defensive issue submitted)