MacIas, Jose
PD-0663-15
| Tex. | Jun 1, 2015Background
- On Nov. 18, 2012 Macias and co-defendant Aparicio approached a car at a convenience store to buy marijuana; Aparicio paid Martinez in the front passenger seat, Mondragon was driving, and Guerra sat in the back seat.
- Aparicio testified he saw a gun in the car, yelled “strap,” and fell back; neither Macias nor Aparicio testified they knew Guerra was present.
- As the car drove off, Macias fired one shot that killed Guerra; Macias later turned himself in and denied knowing Guerra was there.
- At trial the jury convicted Macias of murder and sentenced him to 50 years; the court of appeals reversed and remanded based on erroneous jury instructions on self‑defense and defense of a third person and on omission of a §9.05 limiting instruction.
- The State petitioned the Court of Criminal Appeals, raising whether Texas self‑defense/third‑person statutes authorize force against someone who did not use or attempt unlawful force and whether a defendant can kill a person he did not know was present.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Macias) | Held (Court of Appeals) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §9.31 self‑defense permits using force against a person who did not use or attempt unlawful force | Statutes require the force be used “against the other” — i.e., the person who used or attempted unlawful force; cannot justify killing an innocent third person who did not act | Macias sought an instruction allowing belief based on another’s words/conduct (e.g., Martinez/Mondragon) even if the killed person (Guerra) did not act | Court of Appeals: trial instructions were erroneous because application paragraphs tied defensive findings to Guerra’s words/conduct though evidence pointed to Martinez/Mondragon as aggressors; reversed and remanded for new trial |
| Whether defense‑of‑third‑person instruction may apply when the person killed was unknown to defendant | State: statutes link justification to the person who used or attempted unlawful force; §9.05 prevents transferring justification to an innocent third party injured or killed recklessly | Macias: entitled to defense‑of‑third‑person instruction because Aparicio warned (saw a gun) and Macias reasonably believed he was protecting Aparicio | Court of Appeals: evidence supported a defensive theory against the actual aggressor(s); the instruction as given (naming Guerra) was unsupported and harmed Macias |
| Whether a criminally negligent homicide instruction should have been submitted | State: evidence (familiarity with gun, prior firing, chambered round) supported recklessness or higher culpability, not mere criminal negligence | Macias: may not have known a back‑seat passenger existed; accidental fire or attempt to scare could support criminal negligence | Court of Appeals: no; evidence showed awareness of the risk (familiarity with firearm, chambered round), so criminal negligence instruction not required |
| Whether trial court should have included §9.05 limiting instruction when giving defensive instructions | State: §9.05 bars availability of self‑defense where actor recklessly injures/kills an innocent third person; trial should harmonize defense instructions with §9.05 | Macias: argued accident/lesser culpability theories that could interact with §9.05 | Court of Appeals: trial court erred by omitting the §9.05 limiting instruction; omission contributed to harm because jury could not be properly guided on interplay between recklessness and self‑defense |
Key Cases Cited
- Alonzo v. State, 353 S.W.3d 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (reasonableness of actor’s belief governs application of §§9.31/9.32 regardless of actual result)
- Dickey v. State, 22 S.W.3d 490 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (discussion of multiple‑assailant instruction and related principles)
- Giesberg v. State, 984 S.W.2d 245 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (legislature defines defenses; courts must not create unrecognized defenses)
- Sanders v. State, 632 S.W.2d 346 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (early explanation of multiple‑assailant principles)
- Thomas v. State, 699 S.W.2d 845 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (evidence of knowledge a gun was loaded and pointing it supports recklessness/rejection of criminally negligent homicide instruction)
- Caraway v. State, 263 S.W. 1063 (Tex. Crim. App. 1923) (historical transferred‑justification/transferred‑intent discussion)
- Gross v. State, 380 S.W.3d 181 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (mere presence at a crime scene insufficient to convict as a party)
- Black v. State, 145 S.W. 944 (Tex. Crim. App. 1912) (early articulation of multiple‑assailant rule)