Jose Antonio Moncivais v. State
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 5548
Tex. App.2011Background
- Moncivais was convicted of murder and sentenced to 50 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
- The defense urged legal and factual insufficiency of the evidence on the jury’s negative finding that the murder was not committed under sudden passion.
- The incident stemmed from a confrontation that escalated into a fight where Erik Escontrias and others attacked Moncivais; Erik was shot and later died.
- Moncivais asserted self-defense and claimed fear for his life due to imminent danger from multiple attackers.
- Evidence showed Moncivais anticipated the confrontation, prepared by displaying a gun, and waited outside; multiple witnesses described the ensuing struggle and shooting.
- The jury rejected sudden passion, and Moncivais appealed, challenging both legal and factual sufficiency of that negative finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of evidence on no sudden passion | Moncivais argues evidence does not support no sudden passion | State argues civil standard governs; some evidence supports no sudden passion | Evidence legally sufficient to support no sudden passionFinding |
| Factual sufficiency of evidence on no sudden passion | Moncivais contends the record shows great weight in favor of sudden passion | State asserts jury credibility determinations authorize no sudden passion | Evidence not against great weight; no manifest injustice; finding not reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- McKinney v. State, 179 S.W.3d 565 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (time to deliberate defeats sudden passion; preparation shown)
- Hernandez v. State, 127 S.W.3d 206 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (adequate cause and sudden passion principles applied)
- Smith v. State, 355 S.W.3d 138 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (civil standard used for preponderance burden on defense)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (Jackson v. Virginia standard applies to elements; civil standard for defenses")
- Meraz v. State, 785 S.W.2d 146 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (factual sufficiency standard for defense-weighted issues)
- Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (factual sufficiency framework; weight and credibility retained by fact-finder)
- Cleveland v. State, 177 S.W.3d 374 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005) (civil vs. criminal standards; defense issues reviewed with civil standard (overruled by concurrence))
- Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (State bears persuasion in disproving defensive theories; issue for jury)
- Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex.2001) (evidence standards in civil context; cited regarding standard of review)