Ronald Kendric McCoy v. State
05-14-00227-CR
Tex. App.May 21, 2015Background
- Ronald McCoy was convicted by a jury of misdemeanor assault causing bodily injury after punching Richard Barrett at a Memorial Day pool party and breaking his nose.
- Witnesses disagreed: Barrett and his girlfriend said McCoy struck Barrett while they were shaking hands; McCoy’s girlfriend and the host described Barrett’s handshake and demeanor as aggressive and said McCoy acted in self-defense.
- McCoy did not testify; the State presented Detective Epperson who collected conflicting statements and indicated the host thought McCoy was the aggressor.
- At trial the court submitted a general self-defense instruction but denied McCoy’s request to add a "no duty to retreat" instruction to that charge.
- McCoy appealed, arguing the omission of the no-duty-to-retreat language harmed him; the State argued McCoy was not entitled to any self-defense instruction because the evidence did not support it.
- The court of appeals affirmed, holding McCoy was not entitled to a self-defense instruction because the record lacked evidence he reasonably believed force was immediately necessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by omitting a "no duty to retreat" instruction from the self-defense charge | McCoy: omission harmed his defense; he was entitled to the no-duty-to-retreat instruction as part of self-defense | State: McCoy was not entitled to any self-defense instruction because the evidence did not establish a reasonable belief that force was immediately necessary | Court: No error — McCoy was not entitled to self-defense instruction, so omission of no-duty-to-retreat was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (two-step framework for reviewing jury-charge complaints)
- Shaw v. State, 243 S.W.3d 647 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (defensive issues raised by the evidence must be submitted regardless of source or strength)
- Krajcovic v. State, 393 S.W.3d 282 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (court must submit requested instructions on defensive issues supported by the evidence)