Jairo Umanzor v. State
14-13-00958-CR
Tex. App.Mar 26, 2015Background
- On May 29, 2012, Jairo Umanzor shot and killed Reggie Sheppard Jr.; Umanzor later attempted resuscitation and pleaded with the victim not to die.
- At the scene Umanzor initially told officers three other men in a blue Ford were responsible; a neighbor later implicated Umanzor.
- Umanzor told police he retrieved and loaded a gun because he feared Reggie and another man (“Boogie”) would kill him after an earlier altercation; he claimed he fired in self‑defense though his story shifted.
- Witnesses saw Umanzor standing in his driveway with an outstretched hand as if firing; others saw the victim running and not carrying a gun.
- Ballistic and forensic evidence: mostly .45 caliber casings and bullets at the scene; a .40 caliber bullet on Umanzor’s porch matched .40 caliber rounds found in his home; GSR on both men’s hands (secondary transfer not excluded).
- A jury convicted Umanzor of murder; he received 15 years’ confinement. He appealed arguing (1) insufficient evidence (including rejection of self‑defense) and (2) the trial court erred by refusing lesser‑included offense instructions (involuntary manslaughter; criminally negligent homicide).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Umanzor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove murder and to reject self‑defense | Evidence (loaded gun retrieved, chased and fired at fleeing men, matching ballistics, lies and attempt to dispose of gun) supports intent/knowledge and permits rejection of self‑defense | Shot in fear for himself/family; did not intend to kill; acted in self‑defense | Affirmed — a rational juror could find intent/knowledge and reject self‑defense beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Denial of requested lesser‑included offense instructions (involuntary manslaughter; criminally negligent homicide) | No evidence limited to recklessness or criminal negligence; facts show intentional conduct (retrieved/loaded gun, aimed and fired, consciousness of guilt) | Statements about lack of intent, crouching and attempting to help victim support lesser offenses | Affirmed — no some evidence to support giving lesser‑included instructions |
Key Cases Cited
- Winfrey v. State, 393 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (legal‑sufficiency standard reviewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (once defendant produces some evidence of self‑defense, State must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt; jury may accept or reject defense)
- Sorrells v. State, 343 S.W.3d 152 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (circumstantial evidence can be sufficient for guilt)
- Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (jury may infer intent to kill from use of deadly weapon)
- King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (consciousness of guilt admissible in sufficiency review)
- Rice v. State, 333 S.W.3d 140 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (two‑step test for lesser‑included‑offense instruction)
- Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (Almanza harm analysis for jury‑charge error)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (preserved charge error reversibility standard)