# Benavides v. State

> Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · May 13, 1999 · 992 S.W.2d 511

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9770379

## Case

- **Full name:** Edward John BENAVIDES, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
- **Decided:** May 13, 1999
- **Citations:** 992 S.W.2d 511; 1999 Tex. App. LEXIS 3691; 1999 WL 93198
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by O'Connor
- **Judges:** Andell, Cohen, O'Connor, Schneider, Mirabal, Wilson, Hedges, Taft, Nuchia
- **Cited by:** 49 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9770379

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 s…

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9770379. Public record. Not legal advice.