Emilio Martinez v. State, 10-13-00432-CR

Background

Emilio Martinez was convicted by a jury of resisting arrest with a deadly weapon (shotgun) and evading arrest/detention with a vehicle; sentences 10 and 3 years. Appeals followed.
Facts: officer Hielman stopped Martinez for traffic violations; an interaction revealed a pocketknife, Martinez fled in his truck, returned home, retrieved a shotgun and had a prolonged standoff with multiple officers; a struggle ensued over the shotgun and Martinez was eventually subdued and arrested.
Martinez testified he acted to avoid being shot and to stop officers from beating him; he claimed necessity and self-defense.
Key procedural matters on appeal: challenges to voir dire commitment questions, sufficiency of evidence (including proof to disprove self-defense/necessity), denial of mistrial after witness’s remark that Martinez appeared "possibly on some type of narcotic," denial of requested self-defense jury instruction (resisting charge), and exclusion of a potential rebuttal witness at punishment.
The trial court instructed the jury on necessity but declined a self-defense instruction for resisting-arrest; no self-defense instruction was given on the evading charge.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Martinez)	Held
Voir dire — commitment questions	Questions asking jurors if they would convict despite lack of a video were proper to expose jurors who would require more than beyond-a-reasonable-doubt.	Questions were improper commitment questions that coerced promises and exceeded proper voir dire.	Questions were commitment questions but proper here because they contained only facts that would, if answered affirmatively, support a for-cause challenge; no error.
Sufficiency — disprove self-defense/necessity	State: evidence (officers’ testimony, struggle, recovered shotgun/knife) was sufficient to prove elements and to disprove defenses beyond a reasonable doubt.	Martinez: State failed to disprove his claims of self-defense and necessity; evidence legally insufficient.	Viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict, a rational juror could find elements and reject self-defense/necessity; sufficiency upheld.
Motion for mistrial — narcotics remark	State: remark was an unplanned, non‑embellished observation; curable by instruction.	Martinez: reference that he was "possibly on some type of narcotic" was inflammatory, prejudicial and justified mistrial.	Trial court did not abuse discretion; instruction to disregard cured any error; mistrial not required.
Jury instruction — self-defense requested for resisting charge	State: Martinez did not sufficiently admit to the conduct/elements to warrant instruction.	Martinez: testimony admitted the charged conduct and raised self-defense; requested instruction required.	Trial court erred in refusing self-defense instruction on resisting charge (evidence raised it), but error was harmless because necessity instruction was given and jury rejected defense; no reversal.
Self-defense instruction for evading charge	State: no use-of-force directed at officer via vehicle; self-defense not raised.	Martinez: argued same defensive theory applies.	No error in omitting self-defense for evading: driving away (speeding off) is not force "against" officer under Dobbs.
Exclusion of punishment witness (Mary Lou Fleming)	State: witness violated court’s sequestration order (Rule), judge properly excluded; defense had opportunity to cure and testimony was not crucial.	Martinez: exclusion deprived him of relevant mitigation/rebuttal at punishment and was error.	Exclusion was within trial court’s discretion; no showing Fleming’s testimony was crucial or that counsel procured the violation; no reversible error.
Alleged improper judicial comment in jury presence	State: no contemporaneous objection or request for curative instruction; claim not preserved.	Martinez: court’s bench remark improperly commented on evidence before jury; preserved by default.	Not preserved for appeal (no objection/instruction/mistrial motion); Blue is not controlling. Claim overruled.

Key Cases Cited

Standefer v. State, 59 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (test for improper commitment questions in voir dire)
Lydia v. State, 109 S.W.3d 495 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (definition and treatment of commitment questions)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (application of Jackson standard in Texas)
Kemp v. State, 846 S.W.2d 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (when instruction to disregard will cure extraneous‑offense testimony)
Dobbs v. State, 434 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (definition of "use of force against the peace officer" for resisting‑arrest statute)
Routier v. State, 112 S.W.3d 554 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (sequestration rule—effect of Rule 614 violations and factors for excluding witnesses)