Stanley Lucius Atnipp v. State, 517 S.W.3d 379

Background

Appellant Stanley Lucius Atnipp was convicted by a jury of cruelty to a nonlivestock animal for shooting and killing a neighbor's boxer; sentence of two years was suspended and he received four years community supervision.
Incident: Atnipp confronted three loose dogs near his home after placing his Chihuahua inside; he returned with a shotgun and fired, killing the boxer. Neighbors testified the boxer was not aggressive. Atnipp claimed he fired to protect his dog and a woman outside.
The grand jury charged cruelty to a nonlivestock animal (Tex. Penal Code § 42.092); the statute contains an exception for lawful wildlife/depredation control.
Atnipp raised defensive theories including necessity and depredation control and sought jury instructions defining "depredation," "property," and that dogs are personal property.
The State introduced testimony from several neighbors about prior incidents (threats, chasing, shooting chickens) and impeached a witness (Harris) regarding alleged tampering when he left a constable's office. Trial court admitted some extraneous-act evidence with limiting instructions.
Atnipp raised 17 issues on appeal challenging sufficiency re: the depredation exception, denial/refusal of jury instructions, impeachment and extraneous-act evidence under Rules 401, 403, 404(b), 608(b), and alleged jury-charge error; the court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Atnipp)	Held
Sufficiency re: depredation exception / directed verdict	State: Evidence shows Atnipp was not engaged in depredation control because he had secured his Chihuahua before returning outside to shoot.	Atnipp: Evidence insufficient to disprove depredation exception; he shot to protect his property (Chihuahua).	Court: Overruled Atnipp; viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict, a rational jury could conclude Atnipp was not engaged in depredation control.
Jury instructions: necessity, depredation definition, property/dog as personal property	State: No evidence of imminent harm or depredation; definitions unnecessary or would be improper comment on the evidence.	Atnipp: Trial court erred by refusing necessity instruction, depredation/property definitions, and by refusing to state a dog is personal property.	Court: No error. Necessity not supported (no imminent threat); depredation not raised by evidence; property definition given; labeling a dog as specific property would be improper/comment on evidence.
Impeachment of witness Harris (relevance and Rule 608(b))	State: Cross-examining on circumstances of Harris’s resignation and alleged tampering bears on credibility and is relevant impeachment.	Atnipp: Improper impeachment with specific acts not criminal convictions; Rule 608(b) bars extrinsic evidence of specific acts to attack truthfulness.	Court: Admission was relevant under Rule 401; Atnipp failed to preserve a Rule 608(b) complaint (no specific Rule 608 objection), so review denied on that ground.
Admission of extraneous-act evidence (Neighbors Brown, Shaw, Potter, Smith) under Rules 404(b) and 403; limiting instruction/jury charge	State: Extraneous acts rebut Atnipp’s defensive theory (e.g., motive, intent, or to rebut claim of aggressiveness) and impeach credibility; limiting instructions were given.	Atnipp: Testimony about prior threats, chasing, property damage, shooting chickens was propensity evidence improperly admitted and unduly prejudicial.	Court: Mixed. Brown’s testimony (prior threat to shoot a dog) admissible under 404(b) to rebut defensive theory and probative under Rule 403. Testimony from Shaw, Potter, and Smith was not admissible under 404(b) and should not have been admitted, but any error was harmless—did not affect substantial rights—given other evidence, limiting instructions, and how evidence was used. No reversible jury-charge error; limiting instructions and charge were adequate.

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (sufficiency review principles)
Daggett v. State, 187 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (limits on extrinsic evidence when defendant places character at issue)
Henley v. State, 493 S.W.3d 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (definition and requirements for "immediately necessary" in necessity defense)
Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (admission of evidence received without objection may preclude reversal)
Williams v. State, 301 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (Rule 404(b) admissibility to rebut defensive theory)