544 S.W.3d 499
Tex. App.2018Background
- Appellant Alvaro Exau Lopez was tried and convicted of murdering Camelia Garza; jury assessed 60 years' confinement.
- Garza was stabbed 22 times; crime scene was extremely bloody; Lopez was extradited from Guatemala and arrested.
- Witnesses placed Lopez drinking heavily at Garza’s birthday party the night before; acquaintances described him as "drunk."
- In the hours after the killing Lopez called friends saying his pants were bloody, did not remember what he had done, and attempted to leave the area/country.
- Lopez did not request a jury instruction at punishment on temporary insanity caused by voluntary intoxication, and the trial court did not give one sua sponte.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to give a punishment mitigation instruction on temporary insanity from voluntary intoxication (sua sponte) requires reversal | Lopez: omission caused egregious harm and deprived him of mitigation at punishment | State: temporary-intoxication mitigation is a defensive issue; Lopez waived review by not requesting or objecting; evidence did not raise temporary insanity | Court: Affirmed. Instruction was a defensive issue (no sua sponte duty); omission waived for failure to request; evidence insufficient to raise temporary-insanity mitigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Barrios v. State, 283 S.W.3d 348 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (two-step jury-charge error analysis)
- Delgado v. State, 235 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (trial judge responsible for accuracy of jury charge)
- Taylor v. State, 332 S.W.3d 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (trial judge must instruct on law applicable even absent defense objection)
- Vega v. State, 394 S.W.3d 514 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (no duty to sua sponte instruct on unrequested defensive issues)
- Posey v. State, 966 S.W.2d 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (defensive issues are not "law applicable" requiring sua sponte charge)
- Martinez v. State, 17 S.W.3d 677 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (voluntary-intoxication temporary insanity may be mitigation at punishment)
- Williams v. State, 273 S.W.3d 200 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (temporary insanity from intoxication is a defensive issue)
- Arana v. State, 1 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999) (omission of defensive instruction forfeited without request)
- Ex parte Martinez, 195 S.W.3d 713 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (to obtain instruction, intoxication must have prevented understanding wrongfulness)
- Arnold v. State, 742 S.W.2d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (mere intoxication or gross intoxication insufficient to raise temporary-insanity issue)
- Reyna v. State, 11 S.W.3d 401 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000) (loss of memory alone does not support temporary-insanity instruction)
- Hart v. State, 537 S.W.2d 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (same)
- Howard v. State, 239 S.W.3d 359 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007) (loss of memory insufficient for voluntary-intoxication mitigation)