Mendez v. State
545 S.W.3d 548
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2018Background
- Defendant Adrian Mendez stabbed Jacob Castillo during a bar fight; Castillo later died and Mendez was charged with murder and convicted of lesser-included aggravated assault.
- At trial the court sua sponte gave an abstract jury instruction on self-defense but its application paragraph conditioned acquittal only on a finding that the defendant "did cause the death" (i.e., applied to murder) and did not apply self-defense to aggravated assault.
- Mendez did not object to the charge at trial; the jury acquitted on murder but convicted of aggravated assault.
- On appeal Mendez argued the charge was erroneous and, under Almanza, caused egregious harm; the State initially disputed harm and later argued the court had no duty to sua sponte apply defensive issues to unrequested lesser offenses (citing Posey).
- The First Court of Appeals reversed the aggravated-assault conviction, holding that once the court charged self-defense in the abstract it became "law applicable to the case" and had to be applied to the lesser offense.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding that a trial court that sua sponte instructs on a defensive issue must correctly apply it to all applicable lesser-included offenses; omission is jury-charge error reviewable under Almanza (egregious-harm standard when unobjected).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Mendez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court that sua sponte charges an abstract defensive issue must apply it to lesser-included offenses | No duty to apply the sua sponte defensive issue to unrequested lesser offenses; failure is not error (Posey) | Once the court charged self-defense in the abstract, it became law applicable to the case and must be applied to all applicable lesser-included offenses | Yes. Sua sponte instruction makes the defensive issue "law applicable to the case," so it must be correctly applied to applicable lesser-included offenses |
| Whether failure to apply a sua sponte defensive instruction to a lesser offense is reviewable when unobjected | If unobjected, no error occurred; claim should fail | Charge error exists despite no objection; review under Almanza's egregious-harm standard is required | Error is reviewable; because no objection, defendant must show egregious harm under Almanza |
| Whether omission is a failure to apply the law to facts or an incomplete application paragraph | Omission is permissible under Posey as a defensive/strategic issue for counsel | Omission is either a failure to apply the abstract instruction to the facts (Barrera) or an incomplete application paragraph (Vega) | The omission is erroneous under Barrera/Vega principles; application paragraph must list conditions for acquittal, including lesser offenses |
| Whether requiring application to lesser offenses intrudes on defense strategy | Requiring application could override strategic choices to waive or limit defensive issues | No realistic strategic reason to apply self-defense to murder but not to a lesser-included offense; court intervention is appropriate once it charges the defense | No intrusion: once court charges abstract defense, it should apply it to all applicable offenses; defendant still must show harm if no objection |
Key Cases Cited
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (dual standard for unpreserved jury-charge error; reversal only for egregious harm when no timely objection)
- Posey v. State, 966 S.W.2d 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (trial courts have no duty to sua sponte instruct on unrequested defensive issues)
- Barrera v. State, 982 S.W.2d 415 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (when court sua sponte charges self-defense it signals law applicable to the case and must apply it correctly)
- Vega v. State, 394 S.W.3d 514 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (application paragraph for a defensive issue must list specific conditions authorizing acquittal; failure can be error)
- Delgado v. State, 235 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (trial judge must include in the charge "all of the law applicable to the criminal offense")
- Gray v. State, 152 S.W.3d 125 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (jury charge must apply law to facts; jury must be instructed when to convict or acquit)
- Alonzo v. State, 353 S.W.3d 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (if justification defense is submitted to the jury, a reasonable doubt on that issue requires acquittal for lesser-included offenses as well)