Reeves, Gary Patrick
420 S.W.3d 812
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Reeves stabbed Jeromie Jackson during a physical altercation; Reeves claimed self-defense but admitted to the stabbing.
- Trial court instructed the jury on self-defense but, over Reeves's timely objection, also gave a provocation-as-qualification instruction limiting self-defense.
- The provocation instruction included abstract and application paragraphs; the application language was lengthy and difficult to follow.
- Prosecutor emphasized the provocation instruction in closing, mischaracterized the law, and urged jurors to "pay close attention to it."
- The court of appeals concluded there was no evidentiary support for provocation and found Reeves suffered "some harm," reversing and ordering a new trial.
- This Court granted review limited to whether Reeves suffered harm from the erroneous provocation instruction and affirmed the court of appeals.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Reeves's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether submission of an inapplicable provocation instruction (as a limitation on self-defense) caused reversible harm | The instruction was harmless: jurors wouldn't understand the technical sufficiency threshold, the instruction had no applicability to the facts, and provocation was already present in the self-defense charge | The provocation instruction was unsupported by evidence and, because it limited Reeves's sole defense, its inclusion harmed his rights | The Court held Reeves suffered some actual harm; the erroneous provocation instruction warranted reversal and a new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (standard for harm review of jury-charge errors)
- Tave v. State, 620 S.W.2d 604 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (provocation instruction, when unwarranted, injures defendant's rights)
- Mendoza v. State, 349 S.W.3d 273 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (erroneous provocation instruction likely harmful where self-defense is sole theory)
- Smith v. State, 965 S.W.2d 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (provocation instruction should be submitted only when evidence allows a rational jury to find every element beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (appellate courts should not reweigh evidence; proper jury instruction is essential to factfinder's role)