Emil Coffey, Jr. v. State
06-16-00180-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 13, 2017Background
- Emil Coffey, Jr. shot and killed his brother-in-law, Warren Neal, and assaulted Warren’s wife, Vanessa; a Travis County jury convicted Coffey of murder and aggravated assault.
- Jury assessed 30 years for murder and 20 years for aggravated assault.
- At trial Coffey requested a general self-defense instruction (Defendant’s Exhibit 2) but did not request or specify an instruction on self-defense against multiple assailants.
- Coffey did not request or object to the omission of a sudden-passion instruction at the punishment phase and expressly stated no objection to the punishment charge.
- On appeal Coffey argued the trial court erred by (1) failing to instruct the jury on self-defense (specifically against multiple assailants) and (2) failing to include a sudden-passion instruction at punishment. The court affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Coffey's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to instruct on self-defense (multiple assailants) | Evidence showed Robert (Warren’s son) brandished a screwdriver and shouted, creating a threat from multiple assailants that warranted a self-defense instruction. | Coffey did not request or specify a self-defense-against-multiple-assailants instruction; he only sought a general self-defense instruction about Warren’s use or attempted use of deadly force. | Forfeited and no error: court held Coffey failed to request the specific multiple-assailant instruction, so trial court had no duty to give it sua sponte. |
| Failure to instruct on sudden passion at punishment | Coffey contends his conduct was under the immediate influence of sudden passion, which would reduce punishment to second-degree felony. | Coffey did not request a sudden-passion instruction or object to its omission; trial court had no sua sponte duty to include it. | Forfeited and no error: omission harmless procedurally—defense did not preserve the issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vega v. State, 394 S.W.3d 514 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (trial court must instruct jury on law applicable to case; no sua sponte duty to give unrequested defensive issues)
- Delgado v. State, 235 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (trial court responsible for accuracy of jury charge)
- Posey v. State, 966 S.W.2d 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (defendant forfeits complaint about omitted defensive instruction absent request/objection)
- Abdnor v. State, 871 S.W.2d 726 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (standard for evaluating jury-charge error and harm)
- Taylor v. State, 332 S.W.3d 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (trial court must instruct jury on law applicable to the case)
- Bennett v. State, 235 S.W.3d 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (request must give trial court sufficient notice of omitted matter to preserve error)
- Barrios v. State, 389 S.W.3d 382 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2012) (defendant must request particular self-defense instruction to preserve appellate review)