541 S.W.3d 277
Tex. App.2018Background
- McFadden was convicted of murder after shooting her live-in boyfriend, George; sentenced to 40 years and appealed.
- On Oct. 12, 2003, after an argument, George allegedly poured gasoline on boxes of McFadden’s belongings inside her parked SUV, threatened to burn them, and picked up a lighter. Witness Morgan saw gasoline and heard threats.
- An altercation occurred inside the house; Morgan says George hit and kicked McFadden before following her to the vehicle.
- Morgan testified George ran around the rear of the SUV; McFadden followed with a revolver and shot him; autopsy showed a gunshot wound entering the left cheek with a left-to-right, front-to-back, upward trajectory.
- Police found a loaded revolver in McFadden’s vehicle (six spent casings, three live rounds) and a strong odor of gasoline at the scene; McFadden admitted she shot George.
- At trial McFadden requested a jury instruction on deadly force in defense of property (Tex. Penal Code § 9.42) which the trial court denied; she also claimed self-defense (a § 9.31/9.32 justification), which the jury rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (McFadden) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to support murder conviction | Evidence (witness testimony, gun, autopsy) supports intentional shooting and jury could reject self-defense | McFadden: evidence supports self-defense; George was aggressor and shot in the face while moving/turning | Court: Evidence legally sufficient to support conviction; jury credibility determinations binding — overrules appellant’s sufficiency challenge |
| Trial court denial of requested instruction on deadly-force-in-defense-of-property (Tex. Penal Code § 9.42) | Denial proper because jury already rejected self-defense and evidence didn’t compel § 9.42 instruction (State argued shooting while victim fled) | McFadden: had some evidence to support reasonable belief deadly force was immediately necessary to stop arson (gasoline on boxes, lighter, threats, recent assault) and that property couldn’t be protected by other means | Court: Trial court erred — evidence raised defensive- of-property issue and an instruction should have been given |
| Prejudice / harm from failure to give § 9.42 instruction | Error may be harmless because jury rejected self-defense and State argued facts undermined defense; not necessarily automatic reversal | McFadden: denial eliminated the only path to acquittal given her admission she shot him (confession-and-avoidance defense) | Court: Error caused "some harm" under Almanza; reversal and new trial required |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard for legal-sufficiency review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (reasonable-doubt sufficiency standard)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (hypothetically correct jury charge framing for sufficiency)
- Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (burden of production for justification defenses)
- Brown v. State, 955 S.W.2d 276 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (trial court must charge jury on any defensive issue raised by the evidence)
- Wooten v. State, 400 S.W.3d 601 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (jury rejection of self-defense can negate related defenses)
- Reich-Bacot v. State, 936 S.W.2d 961 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (preserved jury-charge error reversible if it causes "some harm")
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (harm analysis for charge error)
- Villa v. State, 417 S.W.3d 455 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (discussed in relation to confession-and-avoidance defenses and prejudice analysis)