Shawn Pierre Lee v. State, 442 S.W.3d 569

Lee was convicted of burglary of a habitation with the intent to commit aggravated assault and sentenced to 35 years' confinement with no fine.
On appeal, Lee challenges (i) exclusion of Brad Collins's statement under Rule 804(b)(1), (ii) lack of self-defense and necessity jury instructions, and (iii) legal sufficiency of the evidence.
Key trial witnesses included Joel Patterson, Raven Riley, San Antonio police officers, and ballistics experts; Patterson and Riley described the confrontation and shootings.
Collins’s unsworn statement was offered but deemed not testimony under Rule 804(b)(1) and was excluded.
The defense requested self-defense and necessity instructions, which the trial court denied as unsupported by evidence.
The appellate court affirmed, holding Collins’s statement was inadmissible, the requested defenses were not warranted, and the evidence was legally sufficient.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Collins statement under 804(b)(1)	Lee argues Collins's statement should be admitted as former testimony.	State contends the statement was not testimony and Collins unavailable.	Exclusion not an abuse of discretion; statement not testimony under 804(b)(1).
Jury instructions on self-defense	Lee asserts evidence raised self-defense, requiring an instruction.	State argues no immediate deadly-force necessity was shown.	No error; evidence did not support reasonable belief of immediate necessity.
Jury instructions on necessity	Lee argues necessity instruction was warranted.	State contends no evidence of immediate necessity to avoid imminent harm.	No error; necessity instruction not warranted.
Legal sufficiency of the burglary with intent to commit aggravated assault	Lee claims evidence insufficient to prove elements beyond a reasonable doubt.	State argues evidence supports entry without consent and intent to commit aggravated assault.	Evidence legally sufficient to sustain conviction.

Coffin v. State, 885 S.W.2d 140 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 804(b)(1) evaluation)
Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (reaffirms evidentiary-review framework for former testimony)
Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (standard for evaluating jury-charge errors and harm)
Ferrel v. State, 55 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (defensive instructions must be warranted by evidence)
Shaw v. State, 243 S.W.3d 647 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (test for when self-defense instructions are appropriate)
Morales v. State, 357 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (reiterates standard for self-defense discussion of immediate necessity)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1979) (standard for legal sufficiency review)
Odom v. State, 852 S.W.2d 685 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993) (evidence regarding intent to commit assault considerations)