Sofiane Benaffane v. State
01-15-00840-CR
| Tex. App. | May 16, 2017Background
- Defendant Sofiane Benaffane sought out Dontrell Kelly at a nightclub after girlfriend Amanda Morales texted he was with Kelly; Benaffane brought an AK-47 and a handgun and a backup (Hassan Worthy).
- Surveillance video showed Benaffane and Worthy confront an unarmed Kelly with guns drawn after waiting in the club; a struggle ensued, Kelly shot Benaffane, and Benaffane returned fire, killing Kelly.
- Benaffane admitted shooting Kelly but claimed self-defense and defense of Morales; jury rejected those defenses and convicted him of murder, sentencing him to 50 years.
- On appeal Benaffane raised eight issues: sufficiency of the evidence, two jury-charge complaints (provocation and discussion-of-differences), motion for mistrial over prosecutor’s reference to Morales’s indictment, several evidentiary rulings at guilt/innocence, and admission of an out-of-state conviction at punishment.
- The court reviewed credibility issues, video evidence showing delay and planning, and legal standards for justification, provocation, charge error, mistrial, and evidentiary discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Benaffane’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict (and reject self-defense/defense-of-third) | Evidence insufficient because he only intended to scare Kelly and fired after being shot | Video, admissions, and law permit inference of intent to kill from firing a deadly weapon at close range; jury could disbelieve justification | Affirmed: evidence sufficient; jury could reject defenses and infer intent to murder |
| Jury charge — provocation instruction | Charge improper because no evidence he sought to provoke Kelly as pretext to harm him | Sufficient evidence he sought out and knew Kelly was dangerous; jury entitled to infer intent to provoke | Affirmed: provocation instruction was proper |
| Jury charge — discussion-of-differences qualification (self-defense) | Instruction improper because it applies only to ‘‘handgun’’; Benaffane carried an AK-47, not a handgun | State: he handled a handgun (gave it to Worthy) before entry, so instruction could apply | Court: trial court erred in giving the instruction as written, but error was harmless (preserved) — affirmed overall |
| Motion for mistrial — prosecutor asked if Morales had been indicted | Question highly prejudicial and incurable; required mistrial | Reference was curable by instruction to disregard; jurors were instructed to disregard | Denial of mistrial affirmed: instruction to disregard cured any prejudice |
| Evidentiary rulings — teardrop tattoos | Tattoo evidence irrelevant and unduly prejudicial (character/404(b)) | Brief, limited inquiry; probative on identity and background; little emphasis | Even if erroneous, admission harmless given strength of other evidence — no reversible error |
| Evidentiary rulings — excluded Instagram/photos re: Kelly soliciting Morales | Evidence relevant to state of mind; exclusion prejudiced defense | State objected (hearsay/relevance); officer and other testimony already established Kelly was a pimp | Exclusion, even if erroneous, was harmless because other evidence showed Benaffane believed Kelly was a pimp |
| Evidentiary rulings — excluded quote from Morales’s former pimp (“Give me back my b**”) | Admissible to show effect on Benaffane (state of mind) | Hearsay objection sustained | Error, if any, harmless — substantial rights not affected |
| Punishment — admission of out-of-state conviction judgment | Admission improperly linked to defendant (name/birthday mismatch) prejudicial at sentencing | Trial court has wide latitude; jury focused on violent facts and other offenses; conviction evidence fit into sentencing consideration | Even assuming error, any effect was slight; admission did not require reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of the evidence)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (deference to jury on credibility and sufficiency review)
- Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (burden allocation when defendant raises justification defense)
- Elizondo v. State, 487 S.W.3d 185 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (when provocation instruction is not warranted)
- Sholars v. State, 312 S.W.3d 694 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (inference of intent to kill from firing deadly weapon at close range)
- Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (jury may infer intent to kill from use of deadly weapon)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (standard for reversible jury-charge error and harm analysis)
- Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (mistrial is an extreme remedy; curative instruction presumption)
- Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (nonconstitutional error reversible only if substantial and injurious effect)