Wooten, Codiem Renoir
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 824
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Wooten was indicted for murder after a shooting during a confrontation at a Houston strip club; he claimed self-defense, which was rejected by the jury.
- At punishment, Wooten requested a sudden-passion instruction; the trial court denied it.
- The jury sentenced him to 60 years; the instruction would have capped punishment at 20 years if found.
- The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed the punishment judgment, holding the trial court erred by not giving the sudden-passion instruction and found harm.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the court of appeals, holding no reversible harm from the missing instruction and affirming the trial court’s punishment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by denying a sudden-passion instruction | Wooten argues evidence showed fear-driven passion | State contends no terror supports sudden passion under record | No reversible error; no harm found. |
| Whether the absence of the instruction caused harm under Almanza | Some evidence suggested sudden passion could apply | Jury rejected self-defense; unlikely harm from missing instruction | Harm not shown; affirm denial of relief. |
| Whether sudden passion is a punishment, not guilt, issue under current law | Under law, sudden passion ranges punishments | State may argue absence didn’t harm given self-defense rejection | Legal framework affirmed; instruction not required for relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daniels v. State, 645 S.W.2d 459 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (bare fear may not suffice; terror required for instruction)
- Trevino v. State, 100 S.W.3d 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (harm analysis when self-defense rejected; potential for sudden passion evidence)
- McKinney v. State, 179 S.W.3d 565 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (defines burden of production for sudden passion)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (harm standard for Almanza review of jury-charge error)
- Trevino v. State, 236 S.W.3d 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (discussion of whether harm exists when self-defense is rejected)
- Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (cited in discussing Almanza harm standards)
- Posey v. State, 966 S.W.2d 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (defensive issues and Article 36.14 interaction)
- Chavez v. State, 6 S.W.3d 56 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999) (evidence negating self-defense may show lack of harm)