Jestin Anthony Joseph v. State
07-15-00123-CR
| Tex. App. | Mar 28, 2017Background
- At a Fort Worth McDonald’s, Jestin Anthony Joseph pulled a pistol, pointed it at Davage Armstrong (with his seven-year-old son present), demanded keys and money, and pulled the trigger several times though the gun did not fire. Armstrong escaped and Joseph threatened other patrons and fired at least once toward a vehicle before discarding the gun and later being arrested.
- The recovered .380 Bersa pistol had mechanical abnormalities but was capable of discharging. No one was injured.
- Joseph was tried in a bench trial, convicted of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment.
- Two competing psychologists testified: the State’s expert (Dr. Reed) diagnosed an unspecified schizophrenia-spectrum/psychotic disorder but concluded Joseph knew his conduct was wrong; the defense expert (Dr. Fallis) diagnosed paranoid schizophrenia and opined Joseph did not know his conduct was wrong.
- The trial court rejected Joseph’s insanity defense and found the evidence sufficient to prove the requisite mens rea for aggravated robbery; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported rejection of insanity defense (did defendant know conduct was wrong) | State: Evidence (expert Reed + conduct: hiding/discarding gun, statements admitting mistake, compliance with police) provided at least a scintilla and was factually sufficient to show Joseph knew his conduct was illegal | Joseph: His schizophrenia/paranoid delusions rendered him unable to know his conduct was wrong (affirmative insanity defense) | Court: Rejected insanity defense; evidence legally and factually sufficient to support trial court’s finding Joseph knew his conduct was wrong |
| Whether evidence proved requisite mens rea for aggravated robbery (intent/knowledge to place victim in fear) | State: Victim’s fear, defendant’s words and actions (pointing gun, threats, demanding keys, firing at vehicle) support an inference of intent or knowledge that his conduct would cause fear | Joseph: Mental illness negated mens rea because actions were driven by delusions and a desire to flee perceived threats | Court: Mental illness did not negate mens rea; evidence supported a rational factfinder’s conclusion Joseph intended/was aware his conduct would place Armstrong in fear |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruffin v. State, 270 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (insanity affirmative defense test: defendant must not have known conduct was "wrong" meaning illegal)
- Matlock v. State, 392 S.W.3d 662 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (standards for reviewing sufficiency of evidence on affirmative defenses)
- Butcher v. State, 454 S.W.3d 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (civil sufficiency standard applied when defendant challenges rejection of affirmative defense)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency review principles)
- Jackson v. State, 160 S.W.3d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (evidence of mental illness does not necessarily negate mens rea; may explain motive but still support intent)