Roberto Sanchez v. State
418 S.W.3d 302
Tex. App.2013Background
- Sanchez and a friend argued with Sergio Gonzalez after the group left a Fort Worth nightclub.
- Sanchez pulled a knife and chased Sergio, ultimately stabbing him in the parking lot.
- Dilcia and Ingrid testified about the sequence and Sanchez’s escalation with the knife.
- The State disclosed that Dilcia, Ingrid, and Sanchez were in the country illegally; this was mentioned during Dilcia’s testimony.
- Sanchez requested jury instructions on self-defense, defense of a third person, and necessity; the court denied them.
- Sanchez was convicted of murder and sentenced to 70 years; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-defense instruction denial | Sanchez argued evidence supported self-defense. | Sanchez contends the evidence warranted a self-defense instruction. | Denied; evidence did not show reasonable belief of imminent deadly threat. |
| Defense of third person instruction denial | Sanchez argued evidence supported defense of another person. | Sanchez contends it was warranted by the circumstances. | Denied; no evidence Sanchez acted to protect another from deadly force. |
| Necessity defense instruction denial | Sanchez argued necessity applied to the conduct. | Sanchez contends the circumstances justified necessity. | Denied; no reasonable belief of imminent harm to justify necessity. |
| Autopsy photograph admissibility (Rule 403) | Exhibit 39 was prejudicial and unwarranted. | Photograph aided understanding of wounds and primary cause of death. | Admissible; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice. |
| Preservation of mistrial issue | State’s question about alienage should have been deemed prejudicial and mistrial warranted. | Sanchez did not object or move for mistrial; issue not preserved. | Issue waived; not reviewable for fundamental error under the forfeiture rules. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. State, 365 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (preservation standards for appellate review of trial objections)
- Clay v. State, 361 S.W.3d 762 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012) (requirement that rights be preserved for review; waivable vs. systemic)
- Hughes v. State, 306 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. 2010) (alienage evidence; limits on admission to avoid prejudice)
- Anderson, 301 S.W.3d 271 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (waivable rights vs. systemic requirements; due process references)
- Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (explanation of waivable vs. systemic error)