Richard Blake Ray v. State
419 S.W.3d 467
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Appellant Ray was charged with attempted capital murder under Tex. Penal Code § 19.03(a)(7)(A).
- Ray armed himself with a pistol and entered a job site where Hobbs and Stephens were present, shooting both during an argument.
- Ray claimed Hobbs and Stephens approached him threatening to take the pistol, arguing necessity as a defense.
- The State argued Ray provoked the difficulty and thus was not entitled to a necessity instruction under Leach v. State.
- The trial court refused to give a necessity instruction; Ray did not admit to the conduct or mental state required for necessity.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s denial, holding no necessity instruction was warranted because Ray failed to admit to the act and requisite mental state.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether necessity is available for attempted capital murder. | Ray argues necessity applies. | State contends necessity excludes provoked offenses. | Necessity not available here; no instruction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Leach v. State, 726 S.W.2d 598 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987) (provoking the difficulty bars necessity defense)
- Spakes v. State, 913 S.W.2d 597 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (necessity may apply broadly unless excluded by statute)
- Bowen v. State, 162 S.W.3d 226 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (necessity potentially available absent explicit exclusion)
- Juarez v. State, 308 S.W.3d 398 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (confession and avoidance doctrine within necessity)