Victor Anthony Cruz v. State
07-17-00026-CR
Tex. App.Aug 1, 2017Background
- Victor Anthony Cruz shot his uncle Rudy after a verbal confrontation on the front porch of a rental home; the bullet passed through Rudy’s hand and lodged in his liver.
- Rudy had come to the home to confront Cruz about domestic disputes involving Cruz and his girlfriend.
- Rudy and Cruz were separated by several feet and a four-foot chain-link fence at the time of the shooting; no weapon on Rudy was observed or alleged.
- Cruz fled on foot and was arrested shortly thereafter; he was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to 25 years.
- Cruz appealed, arguing the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the use of deadly force in self-defense.
- The trial court had amended the indictment to remove a family-member enhancement; the parties agreed the judgment’s family-member language should be corrected on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant was entitled to a jury instruction on deadly-force self-defense | Cruz argued evidence supported a reasonable belief deadly force was immediately necessary (pointing to blood trail and bullet trajectory as suggesting Rudy might have been reaching for a weapon) | State argued no evidence showed Rudy had or was reaching for a weapon or threatened deadly force; no nexus to immediately necessary deadly force | Court held no instruction required: evidence did not raise self-defense by deadly force when viewed in light most favorable to defendant |
| Whether judgment should reflect deletion of family-member allegation | Cruz requested correction because indictment was amended to remove family-member allegation | State agreed the judgment should be modified to remove family-member designation | Court modified judgment to reflect conviction under § 22.02(a) (aggravated assault with a deadly weapon) and affirmed as modified |
Key Cases Cited
- Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (standard for reviewing jury-charge error and harm analysis)
- Hill v. State, 99 S.W.3d 248 (Tex. App. — Fort Worth 2003) (defendant entitled to self-defense instruction if any supporting evidence appears in record)
- Trammell v. State, 287 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. App. — Fort Worth 2009) (no instruction required if evidence, viewed favorably to defendant, does not support self-defense)
- French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (appellate court authority to modify judgment to make the record speak the truth)