Priscilla Aguilar Hernandez v. State
03-14-00413-CR
Tex. App.Mar 17, 2015Background
- Appellant Priscilla Aguilar Hernandez was convicted of murder and received 30 years’ imprisonment and a $5,000 fine after a jury trial.
- Appellant had demonstrated a rocky relationship with the deceased, including an alleged affair with his underage relative.
- The couple consumed alcohol and argued inside their home; a knife was involved during the confrontation.
- Appellant struck the deceased with a cooking pot, threw a knife, and stabbed him in the heart after escalating the confrontation.
- The jury at punishment rejected the sudden-passion defense; the trial also included a self-defense instruction at the guilt/innocence stage, which the jury ultimately rejected.
- Appellant presented testimony and expert testimony that she suffered PTSD and was a battered woman, suggesting diminished capacity or heightened fear at the time of the stabbing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sudden passion defeated; is the verdict against the great weight of the evidence? | Hernandez argues the evidence supports sudden passion. | State contends the evidence fully supports rejection of sudden passion. | Evidence sufficient; no manifest injustice; trial court’s rejection is supported. |
| Self-defense rejected; is the verdict against the great weight of the evidence? | Hernandez argues self-defense was wrongly rejected. | State contends the evidence disproves self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. | Evidence sufficient to support rejection of self-defense; conviction sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. State, 160 S.W.3d 568 (Tex.Cr.App. 2005) (relevance to burden-shifting and sufficiency review for sudden passion)
- Matlock v. State, 392 S.W.3d 662 (Tex.Cr.App. 2013) (sufficiency review for defense raised by accused)
- Naasz v. State, 974 S.W.2d 418 (Tex. App. - Dallas 1998) (necessity of direct provocation and objective/subjective evidence for sudden passion)
- Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex.Cr.App. 2000) (definition of adequate cause for sudden passion and immediate reflection standard)
- Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633 (Tex.Cr.App. 2010) (standards for reviewing self-defense sufficiency)
- Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910 (Tex.Cr.App. 1991) (self-defense burden and appellate review framework)
- Daniels v. State, 645 S.W.2d 459 (Tex.Cr.App. 1983) (sudden passion as mitigating defense; appellate standard of review)
- Ovalle v. State, 13 S.W.3d 774 (Tex.Cr.App. 2000) (factors for evaluating premeditation and sudden passion)
- Johnson v. State, 364 S.W.3d 292 (Tex.Cr.App. 2012) (hypothetically correct jury charge for sufficiency review)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex.Cr.App. 1997) (standards for reviewing evidentiary sufficiency)
- Jackson v. State, 443 U.S. 307 ((Supreme Court)) (federal standard for reasonable doubt sufficiency (Jackson v. Virginia))