Karra Trichele Allen v. State
03-15-00420-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 4, 2016Background
- Defendant Karra Trichele Allen was convicted of murder by a Burnet County jury for shooting and killing her long‑time partner, Brian Allen; sentence: life imprisonment. The conviction and sentence are on appeal.
- Trial evidence focused heavily on the parties’ longstanding, escalating domestic‑violence history (numerous witness statements, counseling notes, and expert testimony that Trichele feared for her life). Forensic evidence: multiple gunshots, autopsy showing a fatal back‑to‑front wound; Trichele had alcohol in her system and made inconsistent post‑shooting statements.
- Defense theory at trial: the shooting was justified self‑defense/deadly‑force in response to imminent unlawful deadly force, and the statutory presumption that deadly force was reasonable applied (based on the prior violence and circumstances). Expert Dr. Busch testified the abuse supported a reasonable belief of imminent danger.
- The jury charge given at trial included brief, non‑statutory language on provocation, omitted several statutory provisions (notably parts of Tex. Penal Code §§ 9.31 and 9.32), and did not instruct the jury on the Penal Code presumption that deadly force is reasonable in certain circumstances.
- Appellant did not object to the charge below; on appeal she argues the omissions and extra‑statutory language caused egregious harm and violated due process, warranting reversal and remand for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Allen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Omission of the statutory presumption that deadly force was reasonable | State argued the evidence did not support a reasonable belief of imminent deadly force; the shooting was not immediately necessary and defendant was angry rather than fearful. | Allen argues the charge omitted the mandatory Penal Code presumption (Tex. Penal Code § 9.32(b)), which the evidence (history of abuse, expert testimony, her statements) raised, and that omission caused egregious harm. | Not decided in this brief (appellant asks appellate court to hold omission was harmful and reverse). |
| 2. Incomplete instruction on self‑defense and deadly force (omitted statutory text) | State contends the charged language and evidence sufficed to allow the jury to reject self‑defense; prosecution argued defendant did not reasonably believe deadly force was immediately necessary. | Allen argues the jury was not instructed on key statutory elements (§§ 9.31 and 9.32(a)(2)), including mandatory language about when deadly force is justified, rendering the charge legally incomplete and harmful. | Not decided in this brief (appellant seeks reversal/remand). |
| 3. Inclusion of extra‑statutory provocation language | State emphasized provocation and contested that cumulative history justified the shooting; argued sudden passion analysis limited to instantaneous provocation. | Allen argues the charge included non‑statutory wording (e.g., "must have reasonably believed the other person had done more than verbally provoke") that impermissibly focused the jury on provocation and constituted an improper comment on the evidence. | Not decided in this brief (appellant asks appellate court to find error and relief). |
| 4. Cumulative due‑process claim from multiple charge errors | State maintains any single omission or wording did not deprive defendant of a fair trial and the jury rejected sudden passion; errors harmless. | Allen contends the combined omissions and extra language denied her the statutory defenses and fundamental fairness, raising a constitutional due‑process violation requiring reversal. | Not decided in this brief (appellant requests the court to find cumulative constitutional error). |
Key Cases Cited
- Abdnor v. State, 871 S.W.2d 726 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (incomplete jury charge can jeopardize defendant's right to a properly guided jury).
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (standards for harm analysis where charge error was not objected to at trial).
- Villareal v. State, 453 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (discusses egregious harm in charge errors and application of statutory presumptions).
- Cosia v. State, 353 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (requirement of actual, not merely theoretical, harm from charge error).
- Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (prohibits non‑statutory instructions that focus jury on particular evidence or comment on weight of evidence).
- Dugar v. State, 464 S.W.3d 811 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015) (trial court must charge defensive issues raised by the evidence).
- Chamberlain v. State, 998 S.W.2d 230 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (multiple errors may require reversal when they undermine trial fairness).
- Estrada v. State, 313 S.W.3d 274 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (cumulative errors may deprive defendant of fundamental fairness).
- Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196 (1948) (due process requires notice of charges and an opportunity to be heard).