Victor Zavala, Jr. v. State, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 8671

Victor Zavala, Jr. was convicted of murder in Fort Bend County, Texas, and sentenced to 30 years; he claimed self-defense.
The conduct occurred on March 23, 2006, when Zavala confronted his ex-wife at their apartment and allegedly stabbed her during a struggle after doors were kicked in.
The State presented evidence of multiple stab wounds leading to Karen Goodspeed-Zavala’s death; Zavala admitted stabbing but claimed self-defense.
Zavala challenged numerous trial rulings on voir dire, evidence, cross-examination, jury instructions, and closing arguments on appeal.
The appellate court conducted a comprehensive review and affirmed the conviction and sentence.
No challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence was raised, so factual sufficiency is not addressed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Burden of proof on sudden passion	Zavala says burden for sudden passion violates due process and the Sixth Amendment.	The state may require the defendant to prove mitigating facts by preponderance.	Issue lacks merit; burden properly allocated.
Challenges for cause to venire members 38 and 68	Trial court erred by denying challenges for cause.	Panel members could be fair and impartial after individual questioning; language barriers addressed.	No abuse of discretion; challenges overruled.
Improper commitment questions to venireperson 26	State’s hypotheticals improperly committed juror to a specific outcome.	Counsel anticipated evidence; no valid basis to remove for cause.	Questions not improper; issue overruled.
Admission of extraneous-offense evidence (emails/stepdaughter) and related testimony	Emails and alleged fantasies were prejudicial and improperly admitted under 403/404.	Evidence was probative of motive/intent and properly rebutted defense; limiting instructions given.	Admissible as proper rebuttal; no error.
Charge errors including reasonable doubt, unanimity, and provocation	Chapters on reasonable doubt, continued attacking, and separate verdict forms were wrongly instructed.	Judge’s instructions were proper under controlling authorities; unanimity not required for different modes of murder.	Charge proper; issues overruled.

Perry v. State, 158 S.W.3d 438 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (mitigation burden permissible and due process not violated)
Noland v. State, 264 S.W.3d 144 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007) (mitigation burden recognized under §19.02(d))
Green v. State, 971 S.W.2d 639 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998) (mitigation burden does not violate due process)
Russeau v. State, 171 S.W.3d 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (deference afforded to trial court on challenges for cause)
Sanchez v. State, 165 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (permissible voir dire to discover bias; improper to foreclose open-mindedness)
Paulson v. State, 28 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (reasonable doubt definitions in charge; better practice not to define)
Mays v. State, 318 S.W.3d 368 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (reasonable doubt instruction upheld)
Woods v. State, 152 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (charge error standards)
Aguirre v. State, 732 S.W.2d 320 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (general verdict form where appropriate)
Lawson v. State, 64 S.W.3d 396 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (aggravated assault may be predicate for felony murder)