Mendoza v. State
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 7563
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Mendoza was indicted for murder and claimed self-defense after a October 2007 incident at Jorge Hernandez's Kaufman, Texas home.
- Mendoza, his brother Vincent Mendoza, and Juan Muro were socializing with Hernandez; cocaine was used by some participants.
- Mendoza stabbed Muro, who died from multiple stab wounds; defense framed the act as self-defense.
- The autopsy showed nine stab wounds, a head blunt-force injury, no defensive wounds, BAC of .23, cocaine present.
- Hernandez testified no threats were made against him; Muro reportedly attacked earlier, but the record lacks clear testimony of that attack.
- The trial court gave a provocation (provoking the difficulty) jury instruction; Mendoza objected and preserved error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Provocation instruction error in self-defense case | Mendoza argues the provocation instruction was unsupported by evidence | State asserts evidence supported provocation and duty to retreat were relevant | Reversed; provocation instruction not supported by evidence and harmful. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. State, 965 S.W.2d 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (provocation elements require evidence beyond reasonable doubt)
- Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (assignment of error and harm analysis for jury charges)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (harm standard for improper jury instructions)
- McCandless v. State, 57 S.W.672 (Tex. Crim. App. 1900) (harm from improper provocation instruction)
- Tave v. State, 620 S.W.2d 604 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981) (harm assessment for erroneous provoc. instruction)
- Harrod v. State, 203 S.W.3d 622 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006) (governing provocation evidence and error)