Myo Naing Swe v. State
05-16-00810-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 17, 2017Background
- Myo Naing Swe was indicted for murder after Anthwan Clinton died from blunt-force head injuries inflicted with a hammer; Swe fled to Mexico and later admitted at the border that he killed a man.
- At a border interview Swe initially told agents he hit Clinton while Clinton slept; at trial Swe testified Clinton attacked him (including alleged sexual advances) and he used the hammer in self-defense.
- Forensic evidence: numerous blows to the back/right side of the head (consistent with a hammer), at least sixteen lacerations, victim had PCP in his system, and bloodspatter patterns consistent with blows inflicted while the victim was low to the ground (not inconsistent with Swe’s sleeping version).
- Witnesses provided conflicting accounts: some described prior physical altercations and Clinton “tripping” after drug use; others did not corroborate the alleged sexual advances or the self-defense narrative.
- Jury convicted Swe of murder and assessed punishment at 25 years; the jury rejected sudden passion at punishment. Swe appealed raising (1) insufficiency of evidence to reject self-defense, (2) insufficiency to reject sudden passion, (3) exclusion of testimony about the “Illuminati”/gang evidence, and (4) denial of common-law allocution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Swe) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to reject self-defense | Evidence, including Swe’s border statements, flight, and disposal of the hammer, permits jurors to disbelieve self-defense; Jackson standard applies | Swe argues evidence supports self-defense; jury’s rejection is against great weight of evidence | Affirmed: viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, a rational juror could reject self-defense under Jackson v. Virginia |
| Sufficiency of evidence to reject sudden passion at punishment | Jury could reasonably disbelieve Swe’s trial account and rely on physical evidence and statements; State met burden | Swe contends his testimony shows provocation and frantic action (sudden passion) | Affirmed: factual-sufficiency review; jury’s rejection is not so against great weight/preponderance as to be manifestly unjust |
| Exclusion of testimony about the Illuminati/gang context | State objected; court limited testimony and excluded gang/Illuminati evidence; defense failed to preserve argument that State opened the door | Swe sought to show the Illuminati comment was contextual/res gestae and relevant to state of mind | Affirmed: trial court exclusion was not preserved for appeal because Swe did not timely raise the "opened the door" argument at trial |
| Denial of common-law allocution | State notes statutory allocution question was asked; no additional requirement | Swe contends court failed to inquire about common-law right to allocution beyond statute | Affirmed: Swe failed to preserve complaint by not objecting at trial; statutory question was asked per art. 42.07 |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency review of criminal convictions)
- Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910 (Tex. Crim. App.) (self-defense is an issue for the jury; procedural posture discussed)
- Smith v. State, 355 S.W.3d 138 (Tex. App.) (explains burden allocation and review when defendant raises self-defense)
- Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App.) (flight may be considered by factfinder as evidence of guilt)
- Meraz v. State, 785 S.W.2d 146 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standards for reviewing jury findings on issues the defendant must prove by preponderance, e.g., sudden passion)