Smith v. State
355 S.W.3d 138
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Smith was convicted of murder and sentenced to 25 years in prison by a Houston (1st Dist.) jury.
- On appeal, Smith challenged factual and legal sufficiency, and several evidentiary rulings during trial.
- The State alleged Hawkins, unarmed, died from a single stab wound to the chest; Smith testified self-defense and defense of others.
- Evidence showed Hawkins confronted Smith at Stonegate, with Smith blocking the exit, a struggle ensued, and Hawkins was stabbed.
- Smith fled to Victoria after the incident and later returned to surrender; the medical examiner found no other injuries besides the fatal stab wound.
- The court affirmed, rejecting each of Smith’s challenges and finding sufficient evidence for conviction and for the negative finding on sudden passion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for self-defense | Smith, citing self-defense/defense of others, urged insufficiency. | State failed to disprove defense beyond reasonable doubt. | Evidence legally and factually sufficient to support conviction |
| Sufficiency of evidence on sudden passion at punishment | Sudden passion proved by preponderance; negative finding improper. | Record supports sudden passion defense. | Evidence supports the jury's negative finding on sudden passion |
| Exclusion of complainant's prior violent acts | Prior acts admissible to show fear/reasonable fear or first aggressor. | Prior acts properly excluded as 404(b) evidence. | Exclusion was proper; any error harmless |
| Prosecutor's objections to Keisha's opinion on Hawkins's violence | Keisha's opinion on violence admissible as lay opinion. | Objections proper; testimony nonresponsive and cumulative. | No reversible error; no substantial right harmed |
| Exclusion of tattoos depicting violence | Tattoo evidence vital to self-defense/sudden passion theories | Tattoo content inadmissible under Rule 403; probative value outweighed by prejudice | Court did not abuse discretion; exclusion proper; no constitutional error |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010) (Jackson v. Virginia sufficiency standard applies to elements; applies to defense challenges)
- Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003) (State bears burden to disprove section 2.03 defense beyond reasonable doubt)
- Meraz v. State, 785 S.W.2d 146 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990) (Factual sufficiency standard for Meraz-based review of negative defenses)
- Cleveland v. State, 177 S.W.3d 374 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005) (Meraz standard for factual sufficiency in sudden passion context)
- Perez v. State, 323 S.W.3d 298 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2010) (Evidence supporting negative finding on sudden passion where defendant precipitated confrontation)
- Torres v. State, 71 S.W.3d 758 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) (Admission of victim's violent acts limited by Rule 404(b))
- Reyna v. State, 99 S.W.3d 344 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003) (Ambiguously aggressive conduct and admissibility of prior acts)
- Thompson v. State, 659 S.W.2d 649 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983) (Prior violent acts admissible to explain ambiguous aggression)