## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S

O F T E X A S

N O

. P D

- 1 4 3 7

- 1 2

C O D I E M R E N O I R W O O T E N

, A p p e l l a n t

v

.

T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

O N S T A T E ’ S P E T I T I O N F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W

F R O M T H E F O U R T E E N T H C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

H A R R I S C O U N T Y

P R IC E

, J

. , d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n f o r a u n a n i m o u s C o u r t

.

O P I N I O N

A j u r y r e

j e c t e d t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s s e l f

- d e f e n s e c l a i m

, c o n v i c t e d h i m o f m u r d e r

, a n d

a s s e s s e d h i s p u n i s h m e n t a t s i x t y y e a r s ’ c o n f i n e m e n t i n t h e p e n i t e n t i a r y

. A t t h e p u n i s h m e n t

p h a s e o f t h e t r i a l

, t h e a p p e l l a n t r e q u e s t e d a s u d d e n p a s s i o n i n s t r u c t i o n

. T h e t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d

h i s r e q u e s t

, a n d t h e F o u r t e e n t h C o u r t o f A p p e a l s a f f i r m e d t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s c o n v i c t i o n b u t

r e v e r s e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o p u n i s h m e n t

, f i n d i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r tWooten — 2

e r r e d b y n o t g i v i n g t h e s u d d e n p a s s i o n i n s t r u c t i o n a n d t h a t t h e e r r o r w a s “ h a r m f u l

. ” 1

A c c o r d i n g t o t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s

, t h e m e r e f a c t t h a t t h e j u r y m i g h t h a v e f o u n d i n t h e

a f f i r m a t i v e o n t h e s u d d e n p a s s i o n i s s u e

, s u b j e c t i n g h i m t o a m a x i m u m s e n t e n c e o f o n l y

t w e n t y y e a r s ’ i m p r i s o n m e n t

, w a s a l o n e e n o u g h t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t h a d b e e n

h a r m e d

. W e g r a n t e d t h e S t a t e ’ s p e t i t i o n f o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w t o e x a m i n e b o t h t h e c o u r t 2

o f a p p e a l s ’ s e r r o r a n d h a r m a n a l y s e s

. W e r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s w i t h

r e s p e c t t o p u n i s h m e n t

.

F A C T S A N D P R O C E D U R A L H I S T O R Y

I n t h e T r i a l C o u r t

T h e a p p e l l a n t w a s i n d i c t e d f o r m u r d e r

. O n t h e e v e n i n g o f A u g u s t 2 9

, 2 0 0 9

, t h e

3

v i c t i m

, K w a s i J o h n s o n

, w e n t w i t h D e r r i c k L o n d o w t o a H o u s t o n s t r i p c l u b c a l l e d G a t o r ’ s

.

A t s o m e p o i n t d u r i n g t h a t s a m e e v e n i n g

, t h e a p p e l l a n t a n d h i s t w o “ g i r l f r i e n d s

, ” o n e b e i n g

B r a n d i C l e v e l a n d

, a l s o a r r i v e d a t G a t o r ’ s

. C l e v e l a n d

, a p r o s t i t u t e

, b e g a n a p p r o a c h i n g m e n

i n G a t o r ’ s t o o f

f e r h e r s e r v i c e s

. S h e e v e n t u a l l y a p p r o a c h e d J o h n s o n a n d L o n d o w

, a n d

C l e v e l a n d o f

f e r e d t o h a v e s e x l a t e r t h a t n i g h t w i t h t h e t w o m e n f o r t h e a g r e e d r a t e o f t w o

h u n d r e d a n d f

o r t y d o l l a r s

.

1

W ooten v. State , 378 S.W .3d 652, 657 (Tex. App.—Houston [14 Dist.] 2012). t h

2

Id

. (“I f the jury had deter

mined that [t he appellant] acte d out of sudden passion, the offe nse

would have been reduc ed to a felony of the second deg ree

, which car ries a maxi mum sentenc e of 20

y ear s. See Tex. P enal Code § 19.02( d).”)

.

3

T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 19.02(b)( 1) & (2).Wooten — 3

D u r i n g t h e e a r l y m o r n i n g h o u r s o f A u g u s t 3 0

, 2 0 0 9

, J o h n s o n c a l l e d C l e v e l a n d i n o r d e r

t o a r r a n g e t o p i c k h e r u p f o r “ t h e d a t e

. ” J o h n s o n a n d L o n d o w p i c k e d C l e v e l a n d u p f r o m t h e

h o m e s h e s h a r e d w i t h t h e a p p e l l a n t a n d h e a d e d t o J o h n s o n ’ s a p a r t m e n t

. O n c e t h e y a r r i v e d

a t t h e a p a r t m e n t

, L o n d o w l e f t J o h n s o n a n d C l e v e l a n d

, a n d J o h n s o n t h e n a t t e m p t e d t o

n e g o t i a t e a l o w e r p r i c e

. C l e v e l a n d r e f u s e d t h e c o u n t e r o f

f e r

, a n d J o h n s o n o f

f e r e d t o d r i v e h e r

h o m e

. I n t h e c a r

, C l e v e l a n d n o t i f i e d t h e a p p e l l a n t t h a t J o h n s o n w a s b r i n g i n g h e r h o m e a n d

t h a t “ t h e d a t e ” w a s a “ n o

- g o

, ” a l e r t i n g t h e a p p e l l a n t t h a t J o h n s o n h a d n o t d e l i v e r e d p a y m e n t

.

W h e n t h e y a r r i v e d

, J o h n s o n b r o u g h t t h e c a r t o a h a l t a n d C l e v e l a n d g o t o u t

, l e a v i n g t h e f r o n t

p a s s e n g e r d o o r o p e n

. A s C l e v e l a n d w a l k e d u p t h e p a t h t o t h e h o u s e

, t h e a p p e l l a n t

a p p r o a c h e d h e r a n d c o n f i r m e d t h a t t h e d e a l w a s a “ n o

- g o

. ” T h e a p p e l l a n t t h e n c o n t i n u e d

d o w n t h e p a t h t o J o h n s o n

, w h o w a s s i t t i n g i n t h e c a r

.

A t t r i a l

, t h e a p p e l l a n t t e s t i f i e d t o t h e e v e n t s l e a d i n g u p t o t h e s h o o t i n g a n d c l a i m e d

t h a t h e a c t e d i n s e l f

- d e f e n s e

. U p o n a p p r o a c h i n g J o h n s o n ’ s v e h i c l e

, t h e a p p e l l a n t n o t e d t h a t

J o h n s o n h a d p l a c e d a g u n o n t h e c o n s o l e

. A s t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e m e n t u r n e d t o

w h y “ t h e d a t e ” d i d n o t h a p p e n a n d w h y J o h n s o n d i d n o t p a y C l e v e l a n d

, J o h n s o n ’ s d e m e a n o r

b e c a m e m o r e c o m b a t i v e

. A c c o r d i n g t o t h e a p p e l l a n t

, h e “ [ h ] e a r d f r u s t r a t i o n i n [ J o h n s o n ’ s ]

v o i c e [

, ] ” J o h n s o n b e g a n t o s p e a k i n a “ h e i g h t e n e d t o n e [

, ] ” a n d J o h n s o n b e g a n t o d i s p l a y a

s o r t o f “ a g g r e s s i v e n e s s ” i n h i s s p e a k i n g

. T h e a p p e l l a n t c l a i m e d t h a t

, w h e n h e p r e s s e d

J o h n s o n

, a s k i n g h i m t o g i v e C l e v e l a n d s o m e t h i n g f o r h e r t i m e

, J o h n s o n t o l d t h e a p p e l l a n t

,

“ f u c k y o u

, f

u c k t h a t b i t c h

, e v e r y t h i n g y o u s t a n d f o r

, I ’ l l k i l l y o u

. ”Wooten — 4

A f i r e f i g h t e n s u e d

. T h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s d e s c r i p t i o n a t t r i a l a s t o w h o c o m m e n c e d t h e

s h o o t i n g w a s s o m e w h a t i n c o n s i s t e n t

. O n d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n

, h e t e s t i f i e d 1 ) t h a t J o h n s o n

s h o t h i m i n t h e a b d o m e n a s h e w a s r e a c h i n g f o r h i s g u n ; 2 ) t h a t J o h n s o n s h o t h i m b e f o r e h e

r e a c h e d f o r h i s g u n ; a n d 3 ) t h a t h e r e a c h e d f o r h i s g u n w h e n h e s a w t h e m u z z l e f l a s h c o m i n g

f r o m J o h n s o n ’ s c a r

. W h e n t h e p r o s e c u t o r c o n f r o n t e d t h e a p p e l l a n t w i t h t h e s e t h r e e v a r i a t i o n s

o n c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n

, t h e a p p e l l a n t m a i n t a i n e d

, “ I f e l t t h e s h o t a s I w a s r e a c h i n g f o r m y

h a n d g u n

. ” A s k e d w h y h e s h o t J o h n s o n

, t h e a p p e l l a n t r e p l i e d

, “ B e c a u s e I f e l t t h r e a t e n e d f

o r

m y l i f e

, s i r

. I f e l t i t w a s s e l f

- d e f e n s e

. I f e l t I w a s r i g h t e o u s

. ” J o h n s o n ’ s c a r a n d b o d y w e r e

f o u n d n e a r b y w i t h h i s h a n d g u n s t i l l i n s i d e t h e c a r

. T h e a p p e l l a n t c o n c e d e d t h a t i n h i s i n i t i a l

i n t e r v i e w w i t h t h e p o l i c e

, h e h a d f a i l e d t o t e l l t h e p o l i c e t h a t h e a c t e d i n s e l f

- d e f e n s e

, h a d a

g u n

, o r s h o t t h e v i c t i m ; i n s t e a d

, h e h a d f a b r i c a t e d a s t o r y a b o u t b e i n g t h e v i c t i m o f a d r i v e

- b y

s h o o t i n g

.

C l e v e l a n d

, t h e o n l y o t h e r e y e w i t n e s s t o t h e g u n b a t t l e

, g a v e t e s t i m o n y t h a t l a r g e l y

s u b s t a n t i a t e d t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s d e s c r i p t i o n

. S h e t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e s t o o d c l o s e e n o u g h t o

J o h n s o n ’ s a n d t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s c o n v e r s a t i o n t o h a v e h e a r d i t

. H o w e v e r

, a c c o r d i n g t o h e r

t e s t i m o n y

, s h e “ r e a l l y w a s n ’ t p a y i n g a t t e n t i o n t h e w h o l e t i m e ” a n d w a s m o s t l y f o c u s e d o n

h e r p h o n e

. B u t

, a f

t e r h e a r i n g g u n s h o t s

, s h e g l a n c e d o v e r i n t i m e t o s e e a “ m u z z l e f l a s h ”

c o m i n g f r o m i n s i d e o f J o h n s o n ’ s c a r

, w h i l e s i m u l t a n e o u s l y s e e i n g t h e a p p e l l a n t r a i s e h i s a r m

.

W h i l e b a l l i s t i c e x p e r t s a n d i n v e s t i g a t o r s f r o m t h e H o u s t o n P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t c o n f i r m e d t h a t

a g u n b a t t l e t o o k p l a c e

, i n w h i c h b o t h m e n f i r e d m u l t i p l e s h o t s

, n o n e c o u l d s a y w h i c h p a r t yWooten — 5

f i r e d f i r s t

. A f t e r t h e c l o s e o f e v i d e n c e

, t h e j u r y w a s i n s t r u c t e d o n t h e l a w r e g a r d i n g s e l f

d e f e n s e

. H o w e v e r

, i t f

o u n d t h e a p p e l l a n t g u i l t y o f m u r d e r

, n e c e s s a r i l y r e j e c t i n g t h e

a p p e l l a n t ’ s s e l f

- d e f e n s e c l a i m

.

T h e a p p e l l a n t e l e c t e d t o p r o c e e d t o t h e j u r y f o r t h e p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e o f t h e t r i a l

.

A f t e r b o t h s i d e s p r e s e n t e d p u n i s h m e n t e v i d e n c e

, b u t b e f o r e c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t s

, d e f e n s e

c o u n s e l a n d t h e t r i a l j u d g e h a d t h e f o l l o w i n g e x c h a n g e r e g a r d i n g t h e s u b m i s s i o n o f a s u d d e n

p a s s i o n i n s t r u c t i o n t o t h e j u r y :

[ D E F E N S E C O U N S E L ] : I w o u l d r e q u e s t a c h a r g e o n s u d d e n p a s s i o n

. . . s p e c i f

i c a l l y t h a t [ t h e a p p e l l a n t ] s t a t e d t h a t o n c e t h e s h o o t i n g b e g a n t h a t h e

w a s o v e r w h e l m e d b y e m o t i o n s o f f e a r

.

T H E C O U R T : O n c e h i s s h o o t i n g b e g a n ?

[ D E F E N S E C O U N S E L ] : O n c e t h e s h o o t i n g b e g a n

, t h a t h e w a s

o v e r w h e l m e d b y e m o t i o n s o f f e a r

, d i s o r i e n t a t i o n

, c o n f u s i o n

, e t c e t e r a

. A n d

, [ Y ] o u r H o n o r

, I w o u l d a r g u e t h a t t h i s w o u l d s u b s t a n t i a t e t h e c h a r g e

.

* * *

T H E C O U R T :

. . . O b v i o u s l y t h e s e l f

- d e f e n s e h a s b e e n r e

j e c t e d b y t h e

j u r y s o

- - I j u s t d o n ’ t s e e i t

. I ’ m g o i n g t o d e n y t h a t

.

I n t h e a b s e n c e o f a s u d d e n p a s s i o n i n s t r u c t i o n

, w h i c h w o u l d h a v e c a p p e d t h e a v a i l a b l e

p u n i s h m e n t a t t w e n t y y e a r s ’ c o n f i n e m e n t

, t h e j u r y a s s e s s e d p u n i s h m e n t a t 6 0 y e a r s i n t h e

p e n i t e n t i a r y

.

I n t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s

T h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s r e v e r s e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o p u n i s h m e n tWooten — 6

a n d r e m a n d e d t h e c a u s e t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o r a n e w p u n i s h m e n t h e a r i n g

. A f t e r d e t e r m i n i n g 4

t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d n o t t o g r a n t t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s r e q u e s t t o i n c l u d e a s u d d e n p a s s i o n

i n s t r u c t i o n i n t h e p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n

, t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s n e x t p r o c e e d e d t o

d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e a p p e l l a n t h a d b e e n h a r m e d b y t h e l a c k o f t h e i n s t r u c t i o n

. B e c a u s e 5

t h e a p p e l l a n t e x p r e s s l y r e q u e s t e d a s u d d e n p a s s i o n i n s t r u c t i o n

, t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s c o r r e c t l y

c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e r e c o r d n e e d o n l y d e m o n s t r a t e “ s o m e h a r m ” t o w a r r a n t r e v e r s a l

. T h e 6

a p p e l l a t e c o u r t t h e n c o n c l u d e d t h a t

, “ [ i ] f t h e j u r y h a d d e t e r m i n e d t h a t [ t h e a p p e l l a n t ] a c t e d

o u t o f s u d d e n p a s s i o n

, t h e o f f e n s e w o u l d h a v e b e e n r e d u c e d t o a f e l o n y o f t h e s e c o n d d e g r e e

,

w h i c h c a r r i e s a m a x i m u m s e n t e n c e o f 2 0 y e a r s

. ” T h u s

, t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s f o u n d h a r m o n 7

t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e s u d d e n p a s s i o n i n s t r u c t i o n c o u l d h a v e r e s u l t e d i n t h e j u r y f i n d i n g t h a t t h e

a p p e l l a n t a c t e d i n s u d d e n p a s s i o n

, a u t h o r i z i n g a m a x i m u m p u n i s h m e n t o f n o m o r e t h a n

t w e n t y y e a r s

, w i t h o u t a d d r e s s i n g t h e l i k e l i h o o d t h a t t h e j u r y a c t u a l l y w o u l d h a v e f o u n d t h a t

t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s b e h a v i o r r e s u l t e d f r o m s u d d e n p a s s i o n o n t h e f a c t s o f t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c a s e

. W e

g r a n t e d t h e S t a t e ’ s p e t i t i o n f o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w t o e x a m i n e t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s ’ s

h o l d i n g

.

4

W ooten

, supra , at 657-58.

5

Id . at 657.

6

Id

. at 656-57 (citing Alman z a v. S t a t e

, 686 S.W .2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)

(opinion on reh’ g )).

7

Id . at 657.Wooten — 7

T H E L A W

P r i o r t o S e p t e m b e r 1

, 1 9 9 4

, w h e t h e r a d e f e n d a n t c o m m i t t e d m u r d e r u n d e r t h e

i m m e d i a t e i n f

l u e n c e o f s u d d e n p a s s i o n a r i s i n g f r o m a n a d e q u a t e c a u s e w a s a n i s s u e t h a t w a s

l i t i g a t e d a t t h e g u i l t p h a s e o f t h e t r i a l

. I f t h e e v i d e n c e r a i s e d t h e i s s u e o f s u d d e n p a s s i o n

, t h e 8

q u e s t i o n w a s s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y

, a n d i t h a d t h e o p t i o n o f f i n d i n g t h e d e f

e n d a n t g u i l t y o f

t h e l e s s e r o f

f e n s e o f v o l u n t a r y m a n s l a u g h t e r

. B e c a u s e o f c e r t a i n a n o m a l i e s g e n e r a t e d b y 9

t h i s f r a m e w o r k

, t h e L e g i s l a t u r e a c t e d i n 1 9 9 3 t o r e m o v e t h e c r i m e o f v o l u n t a r y

1 0

m a n s l a u g h t e r f

r o m t h e T e x a s P e n a l C o d e

. U n d e r t h e c u r r e n t s t a t u t o r y s c h e m e

, t h e q u e s t i o n 1 1

o f w h e t h e r a d e f

e n d a n t k i l l e d w h i l e u n d e r t h e i m m e d i a t e i n f l u e n c e o f s u d d e n p a s s i o n i s a

p u n i s h m e n t i s s u e

. 1 2

C u r r e n t l y

, a m u r d e r c o m m i t t e d u n d e r t h e “ i m m e d i a t e i n f l u e n c e o f s u d d e n p a s s i o n

a r i s i n g f r o m a n a d e q u a t e c a u s e ” i s a s e c o n d

- d e g r e e f e l o n y c a r r y i n g a m a x i m u m p u n i s h m e n t

8

Trevino v. State , 100 S.W .3d 232, 236 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (per curium).

9

Id

.

1 0

See G old v. St ate

, 736 S.W .2d 685, 686 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987), overruled in part on

other grounds

, Torres v. State , 785 S.W .2d 824, 825 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989).

1 1

See Acts 1993, 73 L eg

., ch. 900, § 1.01, p. 3613, eff

. Sept. 1, 1994; Moore v

. State

, 969 rd

S.W

. 2 d 4

, 8 n .1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (discussing the leg islative chang e to move the issue of

sudden passion fr om the g uilt phase of the tria l to the punishment phase).

1 2

Id

.Wooten — 8

o f t w e n t y y e a r s ’ i m p r i s o n m e n t

. S u d d e n p a s s i o n i s “ p a s s i o n d i r e c t l y c a u s e d b y a n d a r i s i n g 1 3

o u t o f p r o v o c a t i o n b y t h e i n d i v i d u a l k i l l e d ” w h i c h a r i s e s a t t h e t i m e o f t h e m u r d e r

. 1 4

A d e q u a t e c a u s e i s a “ c a u s e t h a t w o u l d c o m m o n l y p r o d u c e a d e g r e e o f a n g e r

, r a g e

,

r e s e n t m e n t

, o r t e r r o r i n a p e r s o n o f o r d i n a r y t e m p e r

, s u f f i c i e n t t o r e n d e r t h e m i n d i n c a p a b l e

o f c o o l r e f

l e c t i o n

. ” T h e d e f

e n d a n t h a s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o d u c t i o n a n d p e r s u a s i o n w i t h 1 5

r e s p e c t t o t h e i s s u e o f

s u d d e n p a s s i o n

. T o j u s t i f y a j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n o n t h e i s s u e o f s u d d e n 1 6

p a s s i o n a t t h e p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e

, t h e r e c o r d m u s t a t l e a s t m i n i m a l l y s u p p o r t a n i n f e r e n c e : 1 )

t h a t t h e d e f

e n d a n t i n f

a c t a c t e d u n d e r t h e i m m e d i a t e i n f l u e n c e o f a p a s s i o n s u c h a s t e r r o r

,

a n g e r

, r a g e

, o r r e s e n t m e n t ; 2 ) t h a t h i s s u d d e n p a s s i o n w a s i n f a c t i n d u c e d b y s o m e

p r o v o c a t i o n b y t h e d e c e a s e d o r a n o t h e r a c t i n g w i t h h i m

, w h i c h p r o v o c a t i o n w o u l d c o m m o n l y

p r o d u c e s u c h a p a s s i o n i n a p e r s o n o f o r d i n a r y t e m p e r ; 3 ) t h a t h e c o m m i t t e d t h e m u r d e r

b e f o r e r e g a i n i n g h i s c a p a c i t y f o r c o o l r e f

l e c t i o n ; a n d 4 ) t h a t a c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n e x i s t e d

“ b e t w e e n t h e p r o v o c a t i o n

, p a s s i o n

, a n d h o m i c i d e

. ” I t d o e s n o t m a t t e r t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e 1 7

s u p p o r t i n g t h e s u b m i s s i o n o f a s u d d e n p a s s i o n i n s t r u c t i o n m a y b e w e a k

, i m p e a c h e d

,

1 3

T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 19.02(d).

1 4

T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 19.02(a) (2).

1 5

T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 19.02(a) (1).

1 6

T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 19.02(d).

1 7

McKinney

v. State , 179 S.W .3d 565, 569 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).Wooten — 9

c o n t r a d i c t e d

, o r u n b e l i e v a b l e

. I f t h e e v i d e n c e t h u s r a i s e s t h e i s s u e f r o m a n y s o u r c e

, d u r i n g 1 8

e i t h e r p h a s e o f t r i a l

, t h e n t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s s a t i s f

i e d h i s b u r d e n o f p r o d u c t i o n

, a n d t h e t r i a l

c o u r t m u s t s u b m i t t h e i s s u e i n t h e j u r y c h a r g e

— a t l e a s t i f t h e d e f e n d a n t r e q u e s t s i t

. 1 9

W h e n a n a p p e l l a n t p r o t e s t s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d n o t t o g r a n t h i s r e q u e s t t o c h a r g e

t h e j u r y r e g a r d i n g s u d d e n p a s s i o n

, a r e v i e w i n g c o u r t m u s t f i r s t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e

c o m p l a i n e d

- o f

e r r o r e x i s t s

. I f

t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t a g r e e s t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d b y f a i l i n g 2 0

t o s u b m i t a s u d d e n p a s s i o n i n s t r u c t i o n

, i t t h e n a n a l y z e s w h e t h e r t h e e r r o r h a r m e d t h e

a p p e l l a n t

. H a r m d o e s n o t e m a n a t e f r o m t h e m e r e f

a i l u r e t o i n c l u d e t h e r e q u e s t e d 2 1

1 8

Id .; Trevino

, supra , at 238-39.

1 9

McKinney

, supra

, at 56 9 ; Trevino

, supra

, at 238-39. This Court has y et to specific ally

addre ss whether sudden passion is a defe nsive issue in contemplation of Posey v. State

, 966 S.W .2d

57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). See Rios v. State

, 990 S.W .2d 382, 384 (Tex. App.—Amar illo, no pet.)

(holding that sudden passion is a defen s i v e i s s u e for Posey purposes). I n Posey

, we held that

defe nsive issues are not “law applicable to the case ” under Code of Criminal Procedur e Article 36.14

unless and unti l the defendant raises t he issue by a ti mely objection or reque st. T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C . art. 36.14. B eca

use a de fensive issue is not “la w of the c ase,” the trial judg e has no duty to

instruct the jury sua sponte reg arding such an issue, and the failure to instruct cannot be reg arde d as

fundame ntal err or under Almanza

. I n the instant c ase, the issue of sudden passion beca me “law of

t h e ca s e” at least by virtue of the appellant’ s reque st for the instruction, if not otherwise. See

Trevino

, supra , at 242 & n.38 (ana ly zing t he appellant’s Almanza complaint reg arding the l ack of

sudden passion instruction f or “some harm,” without spe cify ing whether we reg arde d it as “law of

the case ” beca

use Trevino had reque sted the instruction or, alterna tively

, beca use sudden passion is

not a def ensive issue in any

event)

.

2 0

See Ngo v

. State

, 175 S.W .3d 738, 743 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (citing Middleton v. State

, 125 S.W .3d 450, 453 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (plurality opinion)).

2 1

See Ngo

, supra , at 743; Almanza

, supra , at 171.Wooten — 10

i n s t r u c t i o n

. A r e v i e w i n g c o u r t u n d e r t a k e s a h a r m a n a l y s i s b y f o l l o w i n g t h e s t a n d a r d s a s 2 2

s e t o u t i n t h e T e x a s C o d e o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e A r t i c l e 3 6

. 1 9

. I f t h e e r r o r i s p r e s e r v e d

, 2 3

t h e r e c o r d m u s t d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t h a s s u f f e r e d “ s o m e h a r m

. ” I n a n A l m a n z a 2 4

h a r m a n a l y s i s

, “ b u r d e n s o f p r o o f o r p e r s u a s i o n h a v e n o p l a c e [

. ] ” H a r m m u s t b e e v a l u a t e d 2 5

i n l i g h t o f t h e c o m p l e t e j u r y c h a r g e

, t h e a r g u m e n t s o f c o u n s e l

, t h e e n t i r e t y o f t h e e v i d e n c e

,

i n c l u d i n g t h e c o n t e s t e d i s s u e s a n d w e i g h t o f t h e p r o b a t i v e e v i d e n c e

, a n d a n y o t h e r r e l e v a n t

f a c t o r s r e v e a l e d b y t h e r e c o r d a s a w h o l e

. T o a s s a y h a r m

, w e f o c u s o n t h e e v i d e n c e a n d 2 6

r e c o r d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e l i k e l i h o o d t h a t a j u r y w o u l d h a v e b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t a c t e d

o u t o f s u d d e n p a s s i o n h a d i t b e e n g i v e n t h e i n s t r u c t i o n

. 2 7

2 2

Trevino

, supra , at 241.

2 3

See T E X .C O D E C R I M

. P R O C

. art. 36.19 (“Whene ver it appea rs by the rec ord in any criminal

action upon appea l tha t a

ny require ment of Articles 36.14, 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18 has been

disreg arde d, the judgme nt sh al l n ot be reve rsed unless the err or appea ring from the rec ord was

calc ulated to injure the r ights of defe ndant, or unless it appea rs from the re cord tha t the defe ndant

has not had a

fair a nd impartial trial.”)

.

2 4

Trevino, supra

, at 242; Almanza

, supra

, at 171 (citing T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C

. art 36.19).

2 5

W arner v. State , 245 S.W .3d 458, 464 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

2 6

Almanza

, supra

, at 171. See also Ellison v. S t a t e

, 8 6 S

. W

. 3 d 226, 228 (Tex. Crim. App.

2002) (a pply ing Almanza harm a

naly sis to jury -cha

rg e er ror a t the punishment phase of tria l).

2 7

Trevino

, supra , at 243.Wooten — 11

A N A L Y S I S

E r r o r

R e l y i n g o n D a n i e l

s v

. S t a t e

, t h e S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t e r r b y f a i l i n g 2 8

t o i n c l u d e a s u d d e n p a s s i o n i n s t r u c t i o n b e c a u s e t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s a s s e r t i o n o f a “ b a r e c l a i m o f

f e a r ” a t t h e t r i a l l e v e l d i d n o t r i s e t o t h e l e v e l o f t e r r o r n e c e s s a r y t o t r i g g e r a s u d d e n p a s s i o n

i n s t r u c t i o n

. I n D a n i e l s

, w e e x p l a i n e d t h a t “ a b a r e c l a i m o f ” f e a r w i l l n o t n e c e s s a r i l y 2 9

s u p p o r t a c l a i m o f s u d d e n p a s s i o n

, b u t t h a t f e a r t h a t “ r i s e s t o t h e l e v e l o f ‘ t e r r o r ’ ” w i l l s u f f i c e

( i f t h e c a u s e i s a d e q u a t e ) t o i n v o k e a n i n s t r u c t i o n o n t h e i s s u e

. T h e a p p e l l a n t c o u n t e r s t h a t

, 3 0

t a k i n g h i s “ b a r e c l a i m ” o f f e a r i n c o n t e x t o f t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e

c o n f r o n t a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e t w o m e n

, a j u r y c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r b o t h t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t

e x p e r i e n c e d s u f

f i c i e n t f e a r t o c a u s e h i m t o l o s e t h e c a p a c i t y f o r c o o l r e f

l e c t i o n

, a n d t h a t

J o h n s o n ’ s c o n d u c t w a s a d e q u a t e t o i n d u c e s u c h a n e m o t i o n a l s t a t e i n a m a n o f o r d i n a r y

t e m p e r a m e n t

. A c c o r d i n g t o t h e a p p e l l a n t

, b e c a u s e t h e r e w a s s o m e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e 3 1

a p p e l l a n t ’ s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t h e “ w a s i n t h e g r i p o f ‘ p a s s i o n ’ ” w h e n h e s h o t J o h n s o n

, t h e t r i a l

2 8

645 S.W .2d 459, 460 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983).

2 9

The appellant actua lly testified only that he “fe lt threa tened.” I n reque sting the sudden

passion jury instruction, the appellant’ s counsel asser ted that the evidenc e showed that the appellant

had b ee n “o v er wh el med by emotions of fear.” To fea r i s “to be afr aid of.” M E R R I A M W E B S T E R ' S

C O L L E G I A T E D I C T I O N A R Y 425 (10th ed. 1996). Terr or, on the other hand, is “a state of intense fea r.”

Id . at 1217.

3 0

Daniels

, supra , at 460.

3 1

Appellant’s B rief a

t 24-25.Wooten — 12

c o u r t s h o u l d h a v e g i v e n t h e i n s t r u c t i o n

. W e c o n c l u d e t h a t

, i n a n y e v e n t

, w h a t e v e r e r r o r t h e 3 2

t r i a l c o u r t m a y h a v e c o m m i t t e d b y f a i l i n g t o c h a r g e t h e j u r y w i t h r e s p e c t t o s u d d e n p a s s i o n

d i d n o t h a r m t h e a p p e l l a n t

. F i n d i n g o u r h a r m a n a l y s i s t h u s d i s p o s i t i v e

, w e n e e d n o t a d d r e s s 3 3

3 2

Id . at 24.

3 3

I n his brief on discretionar y revie w, the appellant at o n e p o int alludes to “both ang er and

fea r.” Appellant’s Br ief at 25. To the extent that this sug g ests that the evidenc e also raised “sudden

passion” in the g uise of “ang er” or “ra g e,” we hold that the trial court did not err by failing to submit

the sudden passion instruction on that acc ount. First, in his reque st for a sudden passion instruction

befor e the trial court, the appellant mentioned “fe ar, disorientation, confusion, et cete ra[,]” but never

expli citly cl aimed ang er. Whil e the appellant mentioned ang er in passing in his brief befor e the

court of appea ls, he did so only to make the point that being shot in the abdomen would constitute

adequate ca

use to produce ang er or

terror in a per son of ordinary tempera ment. He ne ver c laimed

to have a ctually

acte d out of ang er. A

ppellant’s B rief on D irec t Appeal a t 33.

Nor would the rec ord support such a claim. At trial, the appellant all but denied having acte d

out of ang er or rage wh en h e s h o t J ohnson. I t is true that Cleveland initially told police that the

appellant looked “ang ry like he wanted to fig ht someone[.] ” When confr onted with this stateme nt

at trial, she clar ified that the appellant had not rea lly been “ang ry at [t he victim]

, but just about the

situation.” For his part, the appellant never identified ang er as his motivating emotion, and he seems

to have de nied on cr oss-examination that it play ed any part in ca using him to shoot J ohnson:

Q. Okay

. But y ou hear d [C leveland], rig ht? Same thing she told the police she told

this jury , y ou looked like y ou wer e re ady to fig ht that guy

.

A. I don' t remembe r that, and I don' t know nothing a

bout that.

Q. Okay

.

A. Had mig ht I been upse t? Yes, I was upset.

* * *

Q. You wer e sitti ng there when she g ot up there and said y ou wer e ang ry enoug h to

fig ht that guy , wer en' t y ou?

A. She didn' t say

that.

I n Daniels

, the acc used testified that he shot the victim beca use he fea red the victim was attemptingWooten — 13

w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d

, i n f a c t

, e r r n o t t o i n c l u d e t h e i n s t r u c t i o n

. 3 4

H a r m

T h i s i s n o t o u r f

i r s t o c c a s i o n t o a d d r e s s t h e q u e s t i o n o f h o w a j u r y ’ s r e j e c t i o n o f a s e l f

d e f e n s e c l a i m b e a r s o n a r e v i e w i n g c o u r t ’ s A l m a n z a h a r m a n a l y s i s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e

e r r o n e o u s d e n i a l o f a s u d d e n p a s s i o n i n s t r u c t i o n

. I n T r e v i n o v

. S t a t e

, u p o n w h i c h b o t h t h e

c o u r t o f a p p e a l s a n d t h e a p p e l l a n t p r i n c i p a l l y r e l y

, a j u r y r e j e c t e d T r e v i n o ’ s s e l f

- d e f e n s e

c l a i m a n d c o n v i c t e d h i m o f m u r d e r f o r k i l l i n g h i s w i f

e

. A t t h e p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e o f t r i a l

, 3 5

T r e v i n o r e q u e s t e d a s u d d e n p a s s i o n i n s t r u c t i o n

, b u t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e c l i n e d t o i n c l u d e i t i n

t h e j u r y c h a r g e

. W e c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d a n d t u r n e d t o w h e t h e r T r e v i n o w a s 3 6

to kill him, but on cross-e x amination, he acknow ledg ed th at h e h ad been “in full control and

. . . knew [he] had to do what [he] did[ .]” Daniels

, supra

, at 461. We held that Daniel’ s own assessment

of t he si tuation specifica lly ref uted one of

the eleme nts require d to raise sudde n passion—that the

actor lacke d the ability for cool ref lection. Her e, simil ar to Daniels

, the appellant acknow ledg ed that

he was “upset” with J ohnson, but the s ource of hi s ang er seems to have been J ohnson’s ref usal to

pay Cleveland—manife stly not an adequate provoca tion to cause a person of ordinary tempera ment

to lose his capa city for cool ref lection. He denied actua lly having experience d ang er, much less any

sug g estion that he acte d under the spell of that par ticular e motion when he shot J ohnson. I nstead,

he simply claimed he shot J ohnson in self-def ense.

3 4

See Cathey v. Stat e

, 992 S.W .2d 460, 466 (Tex. Cr i m

. Ap p

. 1 9 9 9 ) (in revie wing whether

trial court err ed by char g ing the jury on the law of parties, we “assume[d], with o u t d ec i d i n g, that

err or occur

red and turn[ed] to the question of harm.” ). See also Crenshaw v. State

, 378 S.W .3d 460,

464 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (“B eca use we hold that the first issue is dispositi ve, we need not rea ch

the second issue.”); Moore v. State

, 371 S.W .3d 221, 225 (Tex. Crim. Ap p

. 2012) (“We do not

addre ss these two issues beca use the other two issues are dispositi ve of this appea l.”); Lakey v.

State

, 364 S.W .3d 837, 839 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (“F inding our resolution of the second question

dispositi ve, we need not a ddress the f irst.”).

3 5

Trevino

, supra , at 236.

3 6

Id

.Wooten — 14

h a r m e d b y t h e a b s e n c e o f a s u d d e n p a s s i o n i n s t r u c t i o n

. I n c o n d u c t i n g a h a r m a n a l y s i s

, w e 3 7

d i d n o t e x p l i c i t l y i n v o k e t h e f o u r A l m a n z a c o n s i d e r a t i o n s

. O u r i n q u i r y s i m p l y f o c u s e d o n 3 8

t h e l i k e l i h o o d t h a t t h e j u r y w o u l d h a v e f o u n d s u d d e n p a s s i o n b a s e d o n t h e s t a t e o f t h e r e c o r d

a s a w h o l e

. T h e r e c o r d r e v e a l e d t w o c o m p e t i n g t h e o r i e s : 1 ) T r e v i n o ’ s a s s e r t i o n t h a t h e

3 9

a c t e d i n s e l f

- d e f e n s e

, v e r s u s 2 ) t h e S t a t e ’ s c l a i m t h a t T r e v i n o i n t e n t i o n a l l y k i l l e d h i s w i f e a n d

s u b s e q u e n t l y s t a g e d t h e s c e n e t o a p p e a r a s i f h e h a d a c t e d o n l y t o p r o t e c t h i m s e l f

. 4 0

3 7

Id . at 241.

3 8

Id

. at 241-43. As in Trevino

, our analy sis in the instant cas e ce n t er s o n t he state of the

evidenc e and the rec ord as a whole, with an ey e toward deter mining t h e l i k eli hood that the jury

would have acc epted the appellant' s sudden passion claim. I t is true that, in conducting a harm

analy sis under Almanza

, we will t y p i ca l l y al so consider the jury char g e as a whole as well as the

arg uments of counsel. Almanza

, supra

, at 171. Her e, howeve r, as in Trevino

, neither the jury char g e

as a whole nor the arg

uments of counsel prove particula rly informative. Nothing in the balanc e of

the jury char g e at the punishment phase serve d to ameliora te the fac t that the issue of sudden passion

was simply left out. And, in the absenc e of a sudden passion instruction, the parties had no occa sion

to arg ue the issue pr o or con.

3 9

Trevino, supra , at 241-43.

4 0

Trevino attempted to pa int a picture of a heate d arg ument, followed by an intense strug g le

that ultimately culminated in his wife’ s death. He told the police that, on the day of the murder, his

wife had become ang ry at him beca use s h e d i s cover ed slips of paper with other women’s phone

numbers in his wallet. Id

. at 233. As her ang er esca lated, she pointed a .38 caliber revolve r at him

and pulled the trig g er twice, but the g un failed to fire. Id

. Trevino retre ated to the bathroom to flush

the offe nding slips of paper down the toilet and retrie ved his 9 milli meter pistol. Id

. When Trevino

came out of the bathroom, hi s wi fe s h o t at h i m ag ain—and this time her g un went off. Id

. Acc ording to Trevino’ s statement, they strug g led over the two g uns, and two additional shots wer e

fired tha t resulted in his wife’ s death. Id

.

The State soug ht to portray a controlling and abusive husband who shot and killed his wife

and then concoc ted a story of self-de fense

. To this end, the State adduce d testimony that the crime

scene did not match Trevino’ s claims, that a delay betwee n his wife’ s death and a call to 911 allowed

him and his family members, who arr ived on the scene befor e the police, to cover his trac ks, and thatWooten — 15

B a s e d o n t h e r e c o r d a s a w h o l e

, w e w e r e u n a b l e t o d e c l a r e t h a t

, “ h a d i t r e c e i v e d a n

i n s t r u c t i o n o n s u d d e n p a s s i o n

, t h e j u r y w o u l d n o t h a v e m a d e a n a f f i r m a t i v e f

i n d i n g o n t h e

i s s u e [

, ] ” a n d t h e r e f

o r e

, w e c o u l d n o t s a y t h a t T r e v i n o d i d n o t s u f f e r “ s o m e h a r m

. ” W e 4 1

e x p l a i n e d t h a t a j u r y c o u l d h a v e r e j e c t e d T r e v i n o ’ s s e l f

- d e f e n s e c l a i m a n d y e t s t i l l h a v e

b e l i e v e d t h a t h e k i l l e d h i s w i f e i n t h e h e a t o f p a s s i o n a n d s t a g e d t h e s c e n e a f t e r w a r d t o

a p p e a r a s t h o u g h h e a c t e d i n s e l f

- d e f e n s e

. H o w e v e r

, w e d i d n o t d i s c o u n t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t 4 2

“ [ t ] h e e v i d e n c e i n a c a s e i n w h i c h a j u r y r e j e c t e d a c l a i m o f s e l f

- d e f e n s e c o u l d d e m o n s t r a t e

a l s o t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t w a s n o t h a r m e d b y t h e f a i l u r e t o r e c e i v e a s u d d e n p a s s i o n c h a r g e [

. ] ” 4 3

W e t h i n k t h a t t h i s i s s u c h a c a s e

.

T h e s u c c e s s o f t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s s e l f

- d e f e n s e c l a i m b o i l e d d o w n t o w h e t h e r t h e j u r y

w o u l d a c c e p t t h a t

, w h e n h e s h o t a t J o h n s o n

, h e r e a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e d t h a t d e a d l y f o r c e w a s

i m m e d i a t e l y n e c e s s a r y t o p r o t e c t h i m s e l f f r o m J o h n s o n ’ s u s e o f d e a d l y f o r c e

. N o o t h e r

e l e m e n t o f t h e s e l f

- d e f e n s e c l a i m w a s r e f

u t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e

, w h i c h e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h o u t

c o n t r a d i c t i o n t h a t a m u t u a l g u n b a t t l e t o o k p l a c e

. M o r e o v e r

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y

family members had been observe d car ry ing larg e black plastic bag s from the home on the night of

the murder

. Id . at 233-35.

4 1

Id . at 243.

4 2

Id . at 242.

4 3

Id

. at 242 (citing Chavez v. State

, 6 S.W .3d 56,65 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, pet. ref ’d)

(holding that when the State’s evidenc e proved sufficie nt to negate self-de fense

, it also proved

sufficie nt to show lack of harm in the trial court’s failure to submit a sudden passion instruction)).Wooten — 16

a d m o n i s h e d t h e j u r y “ n o t t o c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r t h e [ a p p e l l a n t ] f a i l e d t o r e t r e a t

. ” T h e r e f o r e

,

t h e j u r y ’ s r e

j e c t i o n o f t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s s e l f

- d e f e n s e c l a i m d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t t h e j u r y s i m p l y d i d

n o t b e l i e v e h i s c l a i m t h a t h e r e a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e d d e a d l y f o r c e w a s i m m e d i a t e l y n e c e s s a r y

.

T o r e a c h t h i s c o n c l u s i o n

, t h e j u r y m u s t h a v e r e j e c t e d t h e i n f

e r e n c e

, s t e m m i n g f

r o m

b o t h t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s a n d C l e v e l a n d ’ s t e s t i m o n y

, t h a t J o h n s o n

, n o t t h e a p p e l l a n t

, f i r e d f i r s t

.

T h i s i s b e c a u s e

, h a d t h e j u r y i n f a c t b e l i e v e d t h a t J o h n s o n f i r e d f i r s t

, a s t h e a p p e l l a n t

c o n t e n d e d

, t h e r e w o u l d h a v e b e e n n o i m p e d i m e n t t o a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t r e a s o n a b l y

b e l i e v e d i t w a s i m m e d i a t e l y n e c e s s a r y t o m e e t J o h n s o n ’ s d e a d l y f o r c e w i t h j u s t i f

i a b l e d e a d l y

f o r c e o f h i s o w n

. U n d e r t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s

, t h e j u r y w o u l d a l m o s t c e r t a i n l y h a v e a c q u i t t e d

t h e a p p e l l a n t b a s e d o n h i s s e l f

- d e f e n s e c l a i m

. B u t i t d i d n o t

. 4 4

I t i s h i g h l y u n l i k e l y t h a t a j u r y t h a t h a d a l r e a d y r e j e c t e d t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s c l a i m t h a t h e

r e a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e d t h a t d e a d l y f o r c e w a s i m m e d i a t e l y n e c e s s a r y t o d e f e n d h i m s e l f w o u l d

n e v e r t h e l e s s f

i n d i n h i s f

a v o r o n t h e i s s u e o f

s u d d e n p a s s i o n

. T o p r o v e s u d d e n p a s s i o n

, t h e

a p p e l l a n t w o u l d h a v e h a d t o e s t a b l i s h

, i n t e r a l i a

, 1 ) t h a t h e a c t u a l l y a c t e d u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e

o f a f e a r s o g r e a t t h a t i t c a u s e d h i m t o l o s e h i s c a p a c i t y f o r c o o l r e f

l e c t i o n

, a n d 2 ) t h a t

J o h n s o n ’ s a c t i o n s w e r e a d e q u a t e t o p r o d u c e s u c h a d e g r e e o f f e a r i n a m a n o f o r d i n a r y

4 4

We rec og nize that a jury could have disreg arde d the instruction that, if it be lieved that the

appellant acte d in self-de fense

, it was require d to find him not g uilty

. The jury could have believed

that the appellant acte d in self-de fense

, ignor ed the instruction that require d it to find him not g uilty

under those circ umstances, and found him g uil t y an y way

. Howeve r, we have said that “in the

absenc e of evidenc e to the contra ry

, we will assume that the jury followed its written instructions.”

Miles v. State

, 204 S.W .3d 822, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Acc ording ly

, we will assume that

the jury followed the trial co u rt ’s instructions and found the appellant g uilty beca use it did not

believe tha t he ac ted in self-de fense

.Wooten — 17

t e m p e r a m e n t

. B u t a j u r y t h a t h a d a l r e a d y d i s c r e d i t e d t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s c l a i m t h a t h e r e a s o n a b l y

b e l i e v e d d e a d l y f

o r c e t o b e i m m e d i a t e l y n e c e s s a r y w o u l d b e u n l i k e l y t o b e l i e v e t h a t

, a t t h e

t i m e t h e a p p e l l a n t f

i r s t f i r e d

, h e w a s a c t u a l l y e x p e r i e n c i n g a l e v e l o f f e a r t h a t c a u s e d h i m t o

l o s e c o n t r o l

. M o r e o v e r

, e v e n h a d t h e j u r y b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t s u b j e c t i v e l y

e x p e r i e n c e d s u c h a l e v e l o f f e a r

, i t w o u l d n o t l i k e l y h a v e f o u n d t h a t J o h n s o n ’ s b e h a v i o r

p r e s e n t e d a p r o v o c a t i o n a d e q u a t e t o p r o d u c e s u c h a d e g r e e o f f e a r i n a m a n o f o r d i n a r y

t e m p e r a m e n t

. B a s e d o n t h e r e c o r d a n d e v i d e n c e b e f o r e u s

, i t i s e x c e e d i n g l y u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e

a p p e l l a n t s u f

f e r e d “ s o m e h a r m ” a s a r e s u l t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s f a i l u r e t o g i v e t h e j u r y a s u d d e n

p a s s i o n i n s t r u c t i o n b a s e d o n t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s a s s e r t i o n t h a t t e r r o r o r f e a r c o n t r o l l e d h i s

a c t i o n s

. 4 5

C O N C L U S I O N

T h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s e r r e d t o f i n d “ s o m e h a r m ” u n d e r A l m a n z a s i m p l y b e c a u s e t h e

a p p e l l a n t w a s s u b

j e c t e d t o a g r e a t e r r a n g e o f p u n i s h m e n t t h a n h e w o u l d h a v e f a c e d h a d t h e

j u r y b e e n i n s t r u c t e d o n

, a n d f o u n d i n t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s f a v o r w i t h r e s p e c t t o

, t h e i s s u e o f s u d d e n

p a s s i o n

. W e h o l d t h a t t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s e r r e d i n r e v e r s i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t w i t h

r e s p e c t t o p u n i s h m e n t

. A c c o r d i n g l y

, w e r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s a n d

4 5

I n Trevino

, even afte r reje cting the evidenc e supporti n g self-de fense

, the jury could have

relied on separ ate evidenc e that it had not y et nece ssarily discredited to support Trevino’ s claim of

sudden passion. The jury could have believed that Trevino initially acte d in sudden passion and only

later stag ed the crime scene to make it look like self-de fense

. That is not the scena rio in the instant

case . Her e, the same evidenc e raised both issues, and the jury ’s reje ction of the evidenc e adduc ed

to show immediate nece ssity nece ssarily indicates that it would not have looked favor ably upon the

ap p el l an t’s claim either that he subjectively experience d the requisite deg ree of fea r or that an

adequate ca

use for such a de g ree of fe ar e x isted.Wooten — 18

a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t

.

D E L I V E R E D : J u n e 1 2

, 2 0 1 3

P U B L I S H