Douglas Lynn Kirk v. State
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 788
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- On April 24–25, 2010, Douglas Lynn Kirk shot and killed Alphonso Beza and Pedro Diaz at his house after a group that had helped him move had been drinking and socializing.
- Kirk testified he fired warning shots, then shot down a hallway because he believed Beza and Diaz threatened him and were trying to steal; he later left the scene, sought help from neighbors, and did not report the shootings until hours later.
- Police found the rifle used (hidden in bushes), numerous loaded weapons, ammunition, and evidence of heavy alcohol use by the victims; autopsy evidence showed downward trajectories and shots in Beza’s back.
- The State presented witness testimony and forensic evidence that contradicted Kirk’s self-defense and defense-of-property claims and showed the victims were highly intoxicated.
- Kirk was tried on capital murder (both deaths) and two murder counts (one for each victim); the jury deadlocked on two counts but convicted Kirk of murdering Diaz (count three) and sentenced him to 47 years and a $1,000 fine.
- Kirk appealed, raising: (1) sufficiency of evidence to disprove self-defense/defense of property, (2) admission of photographs from his previous residence, and (3) the trial court’s sua sponte supplemental jury instruction after deliberations began.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency to disprove self-defense/defense of property | State: evidence (forensics, witnesses, flight, intoxication, trajectories) disproved Kirk’s defensive claims beyond a reasonable doubt | Kirk: he reasonably feared for life/property and acted in self-defense/defense of property | Affirmed conviction — a rational jury could reject Kirk’s defenses given the evidence |
| Admission of Clover Lane house photographs | State: photos show state of mind/character relevant to motive and credibility | Kirk: photos were irrelevant, highly prejudicial (Rule 402/403) | Even assuming error, admission was harmless given the weight of other evidence; no reversal |
| Supplemental jury instruction after deliberations began (article 36.16) | State/Court: charge corrected under Barrios; court may supplement if convinced original charge erroneous or jury requests guidance | Kirk: court erred by sua sponte giving supplemental instruction after deliberations without jury request; Article 36.16 prohibits further charge after argument unless limited exceptions apply | Majority: no violation — supplemental Allen-style instruction permissible here; overruled objection. Dissent: would hold the sua sponte supplementation erred as contrary to Article 36.16 |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional standard for sufficiency review)
- Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910 (Tex.Crim.App.) (standard for assessing sufficiency when defendant asserts self-defense)
- Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589 (Tex.Crim.App.) (State’s burden to disprove defensive theories after defendant introduces some evidence)
- Barrios v. State, 283 S.W.3d 348 (Tex.Crim.App.) (instructions on lesser-included offenses and when jury may consider them)
- Sorrells v. State, 343 S.W.3d 152 (Tex.Crim.App.) (deference to jury’s resolution of conflicting inferences)
- Wise v. State, 364 S.W.3d 900 (Tex.Crim.App.) (doctrine on viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- Devoe v. State, 354 S.W.3d 457 (Tex.Crim.App.) (flight as circumstantial evidence of guilt)
- Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (authority on supplemental jury instructions/Allen charge)