Raul Rodriguez v. State
456 S.W.3d 271
Tex. App.2014Background
- Rodriguez was convicted of murder and sentenced to 40 years; self-defense was his sole defense.
- The trial court gave an erroneous self-defense qualification related to a discussion of differences and concealed handgun laws.
- Video and audio of the incident captured Rodriguez arguing with Danaher and others before shots were fired.
- Witnesses testified about whether Danaher or other partygoers crossed the street center line before Rodriguez fired.
- Rodriguez admitted on video that he drew his weapon; testimony conflicted on whether he acted in self-defense.
- The State conceded error in the charge; Rodriguez argued the error warranted reversal, and the court agreed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the self-defense charge error requires reversal | Rodriguez argues error harmed his defense | State contends error was harmless or not applicable | Error requires reversal; not harmless |
| Whether the page 9 instructions improperly discussed unlawful carrying under 46.02/46.035 | Instructions included irrelevant 46.035 parts affecting self-defense | Some evidence supported submission for context | Second and third paragraphs on page 9 were erroneous |
| Whether error preservation and the record support reversal under Almanza | Objection preserved error; record shows harm | Error preservation was adequate but harm questionable | Errors preserved and harmful; reversal required |
Key Cases Cited
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (any harm suffices for reversal when charge error is preserved)
- Arline v. State, 721 S.W.2d 348 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (fundamental error requires egregious harm to reverse)
- Tottenham v. State, 285 S.W.3d 19 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (preservation and harm analysis for trial-charge error)
- Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 909 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (flexible approach to issue preservation)
- Thomas v. State, 408 S.W.3d 877 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (rules for evaluating preservation and error impact)
- Davis v. State, 276 S.W.3d 491 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008) (evidence-based assessment of charge error)
- Williams v. State, 35 S.W.3d 783 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2000) (considerations in self-defense charge analysis)
- Reeves v. State, 420 S.W.3d 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (harm assessment for trial errors in charging)