observing that ordinarily, "[i]f the same evidence raising a fact issue on self-defense also raises an issue on 'sudden passion', then it must also be true that ... *321when the State's evidence is sufficient to overcome a claim of self-defense, it will also be sufficient to show the absence of sudden passion"
How later courts described this case
- observing that ordinarily, "[i]f the same evidence raising a fact issue on self-defense also raises an issue on 'sudden passion', then it must also be true that ... *321when the State's evidence is sufficient to overcome a claim of self-defense, it will also be sufficient to show the absence of sudden passion"
- “It would be ‘a rare instance’ when issues of self-defense do not also raise issues of sudden passion,” and “trial courts, on request, are now generally well advised to give both instructions.”
- concerned with sufficiency of a Jury's finding on the defensive issue of self-def^ese and determining that the jury's verdict did not rely upon the disputed and rejected fact
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MICHOL O’CONNOR, Justice,
dissenting on appellant’s motion for rehearing.
Edward John Benavides, the appellant, was convicted by a jury of the murder of Officer Early. Early died in a military-type raid of the appellant’s house at 5:80 in the morning. The State charged the appellant with capital murder, arguing he knew the intruders were police. The appellant’s defense was that he had no idea the intruders were officers, and given the aggressive nature of the raid, he fired once in self-defense, missing Early, who died of wounds received from other officers.
The jury acquitted him of capital murder, probably because it did not believe the appellant knew the intruders were police. Inexplicably, the jury convicted him of murder. 1 However, if the appellant did not know the intruders were officers, the appellant was entitled to defend himself from the intruders.
The appellant appealed, complaining of, among other things, the sufficiency of the evidence and the jury charge. I would sustain the points challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, and reverse and remand for a new trial.
. I agree with the en banc opinion that the jury’s finding on one issue is no evidence on another issue. However, it is a troubling inconsistency in a case that has precious little evidence to support the verdict.