Rivas, Leonardo
PD-1223-15
| Tex. App. | Oct 29, 2015Background
- Leonardo and his brother Michael were tried jointly for murder, aggravated assault, and conspiracy arising from a shooting that killed Felix Flores; Leonardo was convicted and sentenced to life on the murder count and 20 years on the other counts.
- At trial Leonardo claimed he shot Flores in self-defense after Flores allegedly attacked/stabbed him at the passenger window of an Expedition; several witnesses (including family members) disputed that Flores approached close enough or had a weapon.
- Evidence showed Leonardo retrieved and loaded a handgun before leaving the party; witnesses heard statements from the vehicle suggesting the brothers were looking for Flores; the Expedition stopped near the Flores yard; no close-range stippling or blood trail was found on the vehicle.
- The trial court denied Leonardo’s requested sudden passion instruction at punishment; Leonardo preserved the denial for appeal and argued the denial harmed him because the jury could have rejected self-defense for reasons unrelated to sudden passion (e.g., unlawful carrying/control of the gun).
- The Fourth Court of Appeals assumed the record minimally supported sudden passion but held any error in denying the instruction was harmless because the jury implicitly rejected self-defense and the record contained substantial evidence undermining sudden passion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rivas) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a sudden-passion instruction at punishment harmed Rivas | Denial was harmful because jury could reject self-defense (e.g., unlawful carrying) yet still accept sudden passion; evidence supported instruction so denial caused "some harm" | Even if error, denial was harmless: jury already rejected self-defense and the record contained substantial evidence contradicting sudden passion | Court assumed minimal support for sudden passion but held any error harmless because evidence undermined self-defense and sudden passion; affirmed convictions |
| Sufficiency of conspiracy conviction | Rivas: no agreement proved between co-defendants | State: circumstantial evidence (statements, loading gun, travel to Flores house, flight) supports inferred agreement | Court held circumstantial evidence sufficient; conspiracy conviction affirmed |
| Alleged presentation of perjured testimony re: victim's gang membership | Rivas: State knowingly presented false testimony that Flores was not Mexican Mafia | State: witnesses gave differing knowledge; no evidence of deliberate false testimony; conflicts go to credibility | Court held record did not show knowing perjury; no reversal |
| Exclusion of testimony about officer bias | Rivas: excluded testimony from witness about officer's harassment/prejudice was reversible error | State: other testimony about relationship/bias was admitted; exclusion harmless | Court held any error harmless because jury had other evidence of potential bias |
Key Cases Cited
- Trevino v. State, 100 S.W.3d 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (standard for when disputed or weak evidence nevertheless requires a sudden-passion instruction and harm inquiry)
- Wooten v. State, 400 S.W.3d 601 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (harm analysis for erroneous denial of sudden-passion instruction; focus on likelihood jury would have believed mitigation)
- McKinney v. State, 179 S.W.3d 565 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (instruction on sudden passion should be given if record minimally supports it; focus on evidence supporting— not refuting— the instruction)
- Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (flight and post-offense conduct bear on consciousness of guilt and mitigation)
- Chavez v. State, 6 S.W.3d 56 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999) (recognition that overcoming self-defense at guilt phase often undermines sudden-passion mitigation at punishment)