Valverde v. State
490 S.W.3d 526
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Benny Cavazos Valverde was convicted by a jury of murder for shooting and killing Ramirez at a bar; Valverde does not challenge elements of murder but asserts self-defense.
- Valverde testified Ramirez was insulting, pointed at his waist and said he had something for Valverde; Valverde saw a bulge, grabbed Ramirez, and testified they struggled over a gun that discharged.
- Witnesses generally described Ramirez as loud and intoxicated and heard insults and challenges; no witness saw either man with a gun except Gloria Casas, who observed Valverde grab Ramirez and then heard a shot.
- Forensic testing showed Ramirez had no gunshot residue on his hands; Valverde admitted fleeing the scene and disposing of the gun before police arrived.
- The jury was instructed on murder and self-defense; after hearing evidence the jury rejected Valverde’s self-defense claim and convicted him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to reject self-defense | State: viewing evidence in favor of prosecution, jury could find murder elements and reject self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt | Valverde: he produced evidence of a mutual struggle for the gun and acted reasonably to defend himself | Affirmed — jury could rationally find murder proved and reject self-defense when evidence viewed in prosecution’s favor |
Key Cases Cited
- Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589 (Crim. App. 2003) (burden shifts to State to disprove self-defense once defendant raises some evidence)
- Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910 (Crim. App. 1991) (standards for appellate review of jury’s rejection of self-defense)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (Jackson standard for legal-sufficiency review)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (deference to jury on witness credibility)
- Shaw v. State, 243 S.W.3d 647 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (when defensive instruction is appropriate)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (permissible inferences from circumstantial evidence)
- Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (flight may support inference of guilt)
- Kirk v. State, 421 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014) (flight considered in rejecting self-defense)
- Smith v. State, 355 S.W.3d 138 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (defendant testimony may be disbelieved by jury)