Villarreal, Rene Daniel, 2015 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 136

Rene Villarreal was convicted of murder after stabbing Christopher Martinez multiple times at a party; Villarreal did not testify and his out-of-court statements to police were the only evidence supporting a self‑defense claim.
Trial court sua sponte instructed the jury on general self‑defense (Penal Code §§ 9.31, 9.32(a)) but omitted the § 9.32(b) statutory presumption that, under certain facts, a defendant’s belief that deadly force was necessary is reasonable.
Villarreal raised the omission on direct appeal; the court of appeals reversed, finding the instruction was required and that the omission caused egregious harm to Villarreal.
The State sought discretionary review limited to whether the omission produced egregious harm under Almanza. The Court of Criminal Appeals granted review only on harm.
The CCA held the court of appeals erred: even assuming charge error, the record did not show egregious harm because (1) a proper § 9.32(b) instruction would have allowed the jury to find the presumption inapplicable on the facts, (2) Villarreal’s defensive evidence was weak and contradicted by eyewitness and physical evidence, and (3) defense counsel advanced an identity/insufficiency theory in addition to self‑defense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s omission of the § 9.32(b) presumption instruction was reversible error (harm analysis)	Court of appeals: omission caused egregious harm because presumption favored defendant and self‑defense was the central contested issue	State: omission did not cause egregious harm; harm analysis must consider record as a whole, arguments, and that presumption may be inapplicable	CCA: Assuming charge error, Villarreal was not egregiously harmed; reverse court of appeals and remand
Whether the presumption would likely have changed the outcome given the evidence	Villarreal: presumption would have aided jury’s assessment of reasonableness of deadly force belief	State: evidence showed Martinez was unarmed, Villarreal was aggressor and engaged in criminal conduct, so presumption likely inapplicable and would not change verdict	CCA: Presumption likely inapplicable (no reason to believe Martinez intended murder; Villarreal engaged in assaultive conduct); omitted instruction unlikely to have altered result

Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (standard for reversal when charge error is not objected to—egregious harm test)
Morales v. State, 357 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (rules on when statutory presumptions must be submitted to the jury)
Oursbourn v. State, 259 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (an instruction required by statute is the law applicable to the case and must be given)
Allen v. State, 253 S.W.3d 260 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (egregious‑harm analysis considers whether error vitally affected a defensive theory)
Stuhler v. State, 218 S.W.3d 706 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (assessment of risk of harm from omitted jury instruction)
Cosio v. State, 353 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (reversal requires actual, not theoretical, harm)
Warner v. State, 245 S.W.3d 458 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (burden allocation in harm analysis)
Reeves v. State, 420 S.W.3d 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (egregious‑harm is a high standard and must be shown by the record)
Wooten v. State, 400 S.W.3d 601 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (use of related verdict findings to infer jury disbelief of defensive claim)