Jonathan Andrew Rosario v. State
01-14-00561-CR
| Tex. App. | Apr 29, 2015Background
- Jonathan Rosario (then 17) was convicted of murder by a Bexar County jury for stabbing Kevin Hill during a large fight on December 2, 2012; sentence 40 years’ imprisonment. Appellant timely appealed.
- Facts: a planned rematch fight escalated into a multi-person brawl; members of Hill’s group had knives, a taser, and at least one person threatened the use of a gun.
- During the melee, Hill repeatedly beat and choked Rosario while others attacked Rosario’s group and a female (Shay); Rosario had a small paring knife and sustained head injuries and a concussion.
- Rosario stabbed Hill after blacking out/being choked; Hill later collapsed and died. The jury rejected Rosario’s self‑defense and sudden‑passion (punishment) defenses.
- This document is the Appellant’s brief arguing (1) legal insufficiency of the evidence to reject self‑defense, (2) legal insufficiency regarding sudden passion at punishment, and (3) factual insufficiency regarding sudden passion at punishment — seeking reversal or a new punishment hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Rosario's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury’s rejection of self‑defense is supported by legally sufficient evidence | Rosario: evidence shows he was being beaten and choked, reasonably feared death, and stabbed to defend himself or a third person; State failed to disprove self‑defense beyond a reasonable doubt | State: (trial position implicit) jury could reject self‑defense based on credibility, conflicting testimony, and facts | Trial jury convicted; appellant urges appellate reversal — no appellate decision in this brief (appellant seeks reversal because he contends evidence insufficient) |
| Whether evidence is legally sufficient to reject sudden passion for punishment purposes | Rosario: the chaotic, terrifying assault and his injuries support a finding of sudden passion as a matter of law on punishment; therefore the jury’s negative finding lacks legal support | State: (implicit) evidence supports jury’s rejection; weight/credibility supported conviction and punishment verdict | Jury rejected sudden passion at punishment; appellant requests new punishment hearing; no appellate holding in this brief |
| Whether evidence is factually sufficient to reject sudden passion (punishment) | Rosario: considering all evidence, the jury’s negative finding is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence and therefore factually insufficient | State: (implicit) factual determinations lay with jury; credibility and inferences support the verdict | Jury rejected sudden passion; appellant asks this Court to find factual insufficiency and order a new punishment hearing; no appellate ruling contained here |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. State, 253 S.W.3d 260 (Tex. Crim. App.) (State must disprove self‑defense beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App.) (Jackson standard and deference to jury in sufficiency review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency review: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
- Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589 (Tex. Crim. App.) (burden‑shifting and production/persuasive burdens on self‑defense)
- Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910 (Tex. Crim. App.) (jury may accept or reject defensive evidence)
- Smith v. State, 355 S.W.3d 138 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.]) (application of Jackson standard to rejection of self‑defense)
- Morales v. State, 357 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App.) (elements and justification for deadly force under Texas law)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App.) (appellate deference to jury when resolving conflicts and drawing inferences)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App.) (use of hypothetically correct jury charge for sufficiency review)
- Meraz v. State, 785 S.W.2d 146 (Tex. Crim. App.) (factual‑sufficiency standard for affirmative defenses proved by preponderance)
- Zuniga v. State, 144 S.W.3d 477 (Tex. Crim. App.) (Meraz standard applied to defendant‑provable issues)
- Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. Crim. App.) (discussing standards for sufficiency review)
- Cleveland v. State, 177 S.W.3d 374 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.]) (two‑step civil sufficiency analysis applied to sudden passion at punishment)