N OS . 01-14-00389-CR & 01-14-00390-CR
I N THE C OURT OF A PPEALS F OR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS
J OHNATHAN R

ENARD C ASTANEDA Appellant

v . T HE S TATE OF T EXAS Appellee

On Appeal from Cause Numbers 1350501 & 1350815 From the 263rd District Court of Harris County, Texas

B RIEF FOR A

PPELLANT

Oral Argument Not Requested A LEXANDER B UNIN Chief Public Defender Harris County, Texas J ANI M ASELLI W OOD Assistant Public Defender Harris County, Texas TBN. 00791195 1201 Franklin Street, 13th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Phone: (713) 368-0016 Fax: (713) 368-9278 Counsel for Appellant ACCEPTED 01-14-00389-CR FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 1/28/2015 1:22:41 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKI D E NT IT Y O F P A R

T IE S A ND C O U NS E L

APP EL LAN T: John atha n Re nard Cas tane da TD CJ# 0 19 27 32 9 Clem en ts U nit 96 01 Spur 5 91 Ama rill o, TX

79 10 7- 96 06
TRIAL PROSECU TOR: Matth ew Roy Pe ne guy Ass istan t D istrict Atto rne y Ha rris Coun ty, Te xas 12 01 Fra nk

lin, 6 th F loor Ho usto n, Te xas 77 00 2
DE FE NSE COUN SEL

AT T RIAL: Robe rt Sco tt

Attorne y a t L aw 58 03 2n d St., Suite 1 01 Katy , T X 7 74 93
PRESI DI NG

JUD GE : Ho n. Jim Wa llace, Pre siding Judge 26 3rd Dis trict Court Ha rris Coun ty, Te xas 12 01 Fra nk

lin, 1 7th flo or Ho usto n, Te xas 77 00 2
DE FE NSE COUN SEL

ON APP EAL : Jani Ma se lli Woo d 1

Ass istan t Pub lic D ef

en der Ha rris Coun ty, Te xas 12 01 Fra nk

lin, 1 5th Floo r Ho usto n, Te xas 77 00 2

1 Un ive rsity of Ho usto n Adva nc ed Le gal Writing Class , Fa ll 20 14 , ass isted with the res ea rch an d dra fting

of this brief

. iTABLE OF CONTE NTS

Ide ntity of

Pa rties and Coun se l.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Ta ble o f Co nte nts

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Ind ex of Autho rities .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Statem en t of

the Cas e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Iss ues Pre se nte d.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Statem en t of

Fa cts

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
M r. Ca staneda' s Version of

the F ac ts

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The S tate' s Version of

the F ac ts

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Conflic ting testimony - th e sexual

assaul t

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Other State'

s Witnesses

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 M itigation Witnesses Wh o Provided Af fidav its with M otion fo r New Trial

. . . . . . . . . . 12
Summ ary of

the Argum en t.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Argum en t.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Iss ue O ne : A def

en dan t is en titled to a less er include d of fe ns e instruc tion in the jury ch arge wh en reque ste d. Mr. Casta ne da's def en se co uns el prop erly reque ste d an instruc tion on the less er include d of fe ns e of aggravat ed ass ault be ca use Mr. Casta ne da tes tified he did not inten d to kill Mr. Arms trong

. Th e j u dge ref use d the reque st. Did the judge imp rope rly ref

use the reque ste d ins truction ?.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Ag gra vated assaul

t is a l esser incl uded of fense of murder

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 The ev idence pr esented at trial support

s th e lesser included of fense of ag gra vated assaul

t

. . . . 16 The er ror in th e ch arg

e resulted in sufficient h arm to warrant r eversal

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Iss ue Tw o: A jury ma y find a def en dan t not guilty of a gr ea ter of fe ns e, but guilty of a less er-i nc l ude d of fe ns e. Th e trial co urt den ied Mr. Casta ne da's reque st fo r a jury instruc tion of the less er- include d of fe ns e of ma ns laughte r. Did the trial co urt co mm it rev ers ib l e error by den ying this re ques t?.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 iiThe r

equested jury c

ha rge of manslaug

hter is, as a matter

of la w, a l esser-incl uded of fense of murder.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 The r ecor d suppo rts a convic

tion of o nly mansla ugh ter.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 The er ror wa s ha rmful and requires reversa l.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Iss ue Th ree : Th e jury ch arge mu st disti nctly se t fo rth the law app licable to the ca se . Th e trial co urt sub mitte d a jury ch arge that wa s co nf using and did not cle arly instruc t the jury that the sta te ca rried the burde n of disp rov ing se lf-d ef

en se . Was Mr. Casta ne da egre gious ly harm ed by t he trial co urt’s fa

ilure to prop erly instruc t the jury on the law of se lfdef en se ?.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Relevant F ac ts

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Standa rd o f Review

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 The Tr ial Court Committed Error

by Submitting a

F aulty J ury Instruc tion

. . . . . . . . . . 27 Burde n of Pro of

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Ha rm Anal ysis: Th e Erro rs in the J

ury Char ge A mounted to Eg

regious H arm . . . . . . . . 31 A. The Jury Ch arg

e It self

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 B. Ar guments of Counsel

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 C. Th e Entirety of

the Evidence

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Iss ue Fo ur: Ev ery def

en dan t ha s a right to trial on legally suf fic ient
ev iden ce , wh ich sup ports a conv i ct i on be yo nd a reas ona ble doub t fo r ea ch ele me nt of the ch arge d of fen se . Mr. Casta ne da wa s co nv icte d of aggra va ted se xua l assa u l t abs en t ev iden ce that a dea dly we apo n wa s use d and ex hibited duri ng the ass ault, an es se ntial ele me nt to the ch arge d offen se . Di d the jury co nv ict Mr. Casta ne da on the bas is of insuf fic ient
ev iden ce ?.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
The h ypoth etical ly c orrec t ch arg e required th e Stat

e to p rove M

r. Ca staneda used and ex hibited a dead ly weap on during th e assaul

t

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 There was no p roof

M r. Ca staneda used and ex

hibited a dead ly weap on during th e assaul

t

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

iiiIss ue Fiv e: Th e trial co urt mu st hold an eviden tiary he aring on a mo tion

fo r ne w trial if the mo tion and af fidavits raise ma tters not det erm inable from the rec ord, and the ac cus ed co uld be en titled to relief

. Th e trial
co u r t fa iled to hold a he aring on the mo tion, wh ich include d af fid av i t s fro m av ailable mitigation witne ss es wh o def en se co uns el di d no t ca ll to tes tify

. Did the co urt imp rope rly den y Mr

. C as t an eda a he aring on his
mo tion f or n ew trial?.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Iss ue Six: Th e DN A co urt co st ass es se d again st app ellant i s an unc ons titutional tax on Mr. Casta ne da.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Pray er.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Certific ate of

Serv ice

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Certific ate of

Com plianc e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

ivI ND E X O F A U T H O R IT IE S
Case s :
Al manza v. S tate , 68 6 S. W.2 d 1 57 (19 84

).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 , 3 1
Ba rrera v. State , 98 2 S. W.2 d 4 15 (Te x. Crim. App. 19 98 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Ba rrios v. Stat

e , 28 3 S. W.3 d 3 48 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 09 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Ba rrios v. Stat

e , 38 9 S. W.3 d 3 82 (Te x. App. —T ex ark ana 20 12 , p et. ref

’d).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Ba rron v. Stat

e , 35 3 S. W.3 d 8 79 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 11 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 , 2 5
Bro ok s v. State , 32 3 S. W.3 d 8 93 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 10 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Burns v. Stat

e , 92 3 S. W.2 d 2 33 (Te x. App. -[ 14 th D ist.] 19 96 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Cardenas v . S tate , 42 3 S. W.3 d 3 96 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 14 )..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Cavaz os v. Stat e , 38 2 S. W.3 d 3 77 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 12 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 , 2 0, 21 , 2 2 Crumpton v. S tate , 30 1 S. W.3 d 6 63 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 09 ) .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Curry v. S tate , 30 S.W. 3d 39 4 (T ex . Crim . Ap p. 20 00 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 , 3 7, 38

vDowden v. State ,

75 8 S. W.2 d 2 64 (Te x. Crim. App. 19 88 ) .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Drich as v. Stat

e , 17 5 S. W.3 d 7 95 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 05 ) .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Ex pa rte Lemk e , 13 S.W. 3d 79 1 (T ex . Crim . Ap p. 20 00 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Ex pa rte Wa tson , 30 6 S. W.3 d 2 59 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 09 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Fo rest v. Stat

e , 98 9 S. W.2 d 3 65 (Te x. Crim. App. 19 99 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Gild er v. Stat e , 14 -1 3- 01 08 8- CR, 2 01 4 W

L 72 04 96 2 (Te x. App. —H ous ton [1 4th D ist.] D ec . 1 8, 20 14 , n o. pe t. h .).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Go ll ihar v. S tate , 46 S.W. 3d 24 3 (T ex . Crim . Ap p. 20 01 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Go nzal es v. State , 71 7 S. W.2 d 3 55 (Te x. Crim. App. 19 86 )..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Ha yward v. Stat

e , 15 8 S. W.3 d 4 76 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 05 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Ho ll ander v. Stat

e , 41 4 S. W.3 d 7 46 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 13 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Ja ck son v. Virg

ini a , 44 3 U .S. 30 7 (1 97 9).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Jo hnson v. Stat

e , 42 3 S. W.3 d 3 85 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 14 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

viJo hnson v. Stat e , 91 5 S. W.2 d 6 53 (Te x. App. -H ous ton [1 4th D ist.) 19 96 , p et. ref ’d).

. . . . . . 17 , 1 8
LaF leur v. Stat e , 10 6 S. W.3 d 9 1 (T ex . Crim . Ap p. 20 03 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 , 3 8
Lawson v. Stat

e , 77 5 S. W.2 d 4 95 (Te x. App. -Aus tin 1 98 9, pe t. re fd ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 , 1 8
Lee v. State, 29 S.W. 3d 57 0 (T ex . Ap p. – D allas 2 00 0, no pe t.).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Lucero v. S tate , 24 6 S. W.3 d 8 6 (T ex . Crim . Ap p. 20 08 ) .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 , 4 2
M alik v. State , 95 3 S. W.2 d 2 34 (Te x. Crim. App. 19 97 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
M artinez v. Stat

e , 74 S.W. 3d 19 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 02 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 , 4 2, 43
M atth ews v. S tate , 99 9 S. W.2 d 5 63 (Te x. App. – H ous ton , [ 14 D ist.] 19 99 , p et. ref ’d).

. . . . . . . . 31 th
M cCain v. State , 2 2 S. W.3 d 4 97 , 5 03 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 00 )..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 , 3 9
M cKith an v. State , 32 4 S. W.3 d 5 82 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 10 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
M erch ant v. Stat

e , 81 0 S. W.2 d 3 05 (Te x. App. -D allas 1 99 1, pe t ref ’d).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
M ilburn v. Stat

e , 15 S.W. 3d 26 7 (T ex . Ap p. -H ous ton [1 4th D ist.] 20 00 , p et. ref

'd).

. . . . . . . . . . 44
M iles v. Stat e , 20 4 S. W.3 d 8 22 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 06 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

viiM

oore v . S tate , 98 3 S. W.2 d 1 5 (T ex . Ap p. -H ous ton [1 4th D ist.] 19 98 , n o p et. ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . 44
M oore v . S tate , 96 9 S. W.2 d 4 (Te x. Crim. App. 19 98 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Ngo v. State, 17 5 S. W.3 d 7 38 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 05 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Patterso n v. S tate , 76 9 S. W.2 d 9 38 (Te x. Crim. App. 19 89 ) .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Peraz a v. Stat e , No . 0 1- 12 -0 06 90 -CR, 20 14 WL 74 76 21 4 (Te x. App. - H ous ton [1 st D ist.] D ec . 3 0, 20 14 , p et. filed ).

. . . . . . . . . . 46 , 4 7, 48
Plummer v. S tate , 41 0 S. W.3 d 8 55 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 13 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Reeves v. S tate, 42 0 S. W.3 d 8 12 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 13 ) .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 , 2 8, 29
Sal az ar v. Stat e , 87 S.W. 3d 68 0 (T ex . Crim . Ap p. 20 02 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Smith v. Stat

e , 28 6 S. W.3 d 3 33 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 09 ) .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 , 4 2
Sweed v. Stat

e , 35 1 S. W.3 d 6 3 (T ex . Crim . Ap p. 20 11 ) .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Tidmore v. Stat

e , 97 6 S. W.2 d 7 24 (Te x. App. —T yle r 19 98 , p et. ref ’d).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Trevino v. S tate , 10 0 S. W.3 d 2 32 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 03 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

vii iWal

lac e v. State , 10 6 S. W.3 d 1 03 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 03 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Westbro ok v. State , 84 6 S. W.2 d 1 55 (Te x. App. -F ort Wo rth 1 99 3, no pe t.).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Williams v. Stat

e , 54 7 S. W.2 d 1 8 (T ex . Crim . Ap p. 19 77 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Williams v. Stat

e , 31 4 S. W.3 d 4 5 (T ex . Ap p. -T yle r 20 10 , p et. ref ' d)..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Willis v. Stat

e , 93 6 S. W.2 d 3 02 (Te x. App. -T yle r, 1 99 6).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Winfrey v. Stat

e , 32 3 S. W.3 d 8 75 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 10 ) .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Worth am v. State , 41 2 S. W.3 d 5 52 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 13 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 , 1 7

St atut es and M isc el

lane ou s:
T E X

. C O D E C RI M

. P RO C

. A RT

. 36 .1 4.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 , 2 7
T E X

. C O D E C RI M

. P RO C

. A RT

. 37 .0 9.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 , 2 0, 21
T E X

. C O D E C RI M

. P RO C

. A RT

. 10 2. 02 0( A )(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
T E X

. C RI M

. P RO C

. A RT

. 10 2. 02 0( H ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
T E X

. G O V ’ T C O D E A RT

. 41 1. 14 71 (a)(1 )(D ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
T E X

. G O V ' T C O D E A N N

. §77 2. 00 6( A )(2)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
T E X

. P E N

. C O D E §9. 32 (a)(2 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 , 34

ixT E X

. P E N A L C O D E A N N

. §12 .3 3( A ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
T E X

. P E N A L C O D E A N N

. §19 .0 2( A )(1).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
T E X

. P E N A L C O D E A N N

. § 19 .0 2( B ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
T E X

. P E N A L C O D E A N N

. § 19 .0 4.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
T E X

. P E N A L C O D E A N N

. § 22 .0 2( A )( L ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
T E X

. P E N A L C O D E A N N

. §§ 22 .0 2( B ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
T E X

. P E N A L C O D E A N N

. § 22 .0 21 ( A ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Texas Criminal Pat

ter J ury Char ges— Defenses (20 13 ), §B 14 .4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 , 3 1

xS T A T E M E NT O F T H E C A SE John atha n Rena rd Casta ne da wa s indicte d fo r aggrava t ed sexua l ass ault of an ad u l t ( 1 C.R. at 12

) and mu rder. (2 C.R. at 13 ). He wa s tried by a jury and wa s 2

co nv icte d of bot h of

fe ns es on April 24 , 201 4. ( 1 C.R. at 69 ; 2 C.R. at 77 ). Mr.
Casta ne da ele ct ed t o hav e the co urt ass es s pun ishm en t. (7 R.R. at 5- 8). At se nte nc ing,
he adm itted to a 20 08 co nv iction fo r fe lony se xua l ass ault as part of the aggra va ted

se xua l ass ault co nv

iction (7 R.R. at 5), cite d in the first en han ce me nt para graph

. (1
C.R. at 12, 73)

. He also adm itted to a 20 08 co nv iction of fe lony se xua l ass ault of a ch ild as part of the mu rder co nv iction (7 R.R. at 5), cite d in the first en han ce me nt para graph

. (2 C.R. at 13 , 81 ). Th e co urt se nte nc ed hi m to an autom atic life se nte nc e fo r the en han ce d aggra

va ted se xua l assau l t co nv

i ct i on (7 R.R. at 7- 8; 1 C.R. at 73 ), and
45 ye ars in priso n f

or th e m urder. (7 R.R. a t 8; 2 C.R. at 8 1).
Mr. Casta ne da filed a time ly No tice of Appe al on April 24, 201 4. ( 1 C.R. 77 ; 2 C.R. at 85). Appe llate coun se l was ap po inted on April 25 , 20 14 . (1 C.R. at 80 ; 2 C.R. at
88 ). She filed a time l y M ot i on fo r Ne w Trial on May 22 , 20 14

. (1 C.R. at 82 ; 2 C.R. at 90 ), wh ich wa s pre se nte d to the judge on May 23 , 20 14

. (1 C.R. at 17 4; 2 C.R. at 182 ).
Th e co urt did not rule on the reque st fo r a he aring on the Motion fo r New Trial. (1
C.R. at 158 ; 2 C.R. at 17 4). No or de r grant ing or den ying the mo tion was issue d by the

co urt. (1 C.R. at 1 59 ; 2 C.R. at 1 74 ).

2 Th i s app ea l invo lve s the co ns olidation of two ch arge s, res ulting in two cle r k’ s rec ords

. Th e cle rk's rec ord fo r the aggra va ted se xua l ass ault ch arge (Caus e No

. 13 50 50 1) will be r eferred to as “1 C.R.” Th e cle rk's rec ord fo r the mu rder ch arge (Caus e No

. 13 50 81 5) w

ill be ref erre d to as “2 C.R.” 1I SSU E S P R E SE NT E D

Iss ue One : A def

en dan t is en titled to a les se r include d of fe ns e instruc tion in the jury ch arge wh en reque ste d. Mr. Casta ne da's def en se co uns el prop erly reque ste d an in struc tion on the less er include d of fe ns e of aggra va ted ass ault be ca use Mr. C ast ane da tes tified he did not inten d to ki ll Mr. Arms trong

. Th e judge ref use d the reque st. Did the judge imp rope rly ref

use the reque ste d ins truction ?
Iss ue Tw o: A jury ma y find a de fend ant not guilty of a grea ter of fe ns e, bu t guilty of a less er- include d of fe ns e. Th e trial co urt den ied Mr. Casta ne da's reque st fo r a jury instruc tion of the less er- include d of fe ns e of ma ns laughte r. Did the trial co urt co mm it rev ers ible error by den yin g this re ques t?
Iss ue Th ree : Th e jury ch arge mu st di stinctly se t fo rth the law app licable to the ca se . Th e trial co urt sub mitte d a jury ch arge that wa s co nf using and did not cle arly instruc t the jury that the sta te ca rried the burde n of disp rovi ng se lf-d ef

en se . Was Mr. Casta ne da egre gious ly harm ed by the trial co urt’s fa

ilure to prop erly instruc t the jury on the law of se lfdef en se ?
Iss ue Fo ur: Ev ery def

en dan t has a right to trial on legally suf fic ient ev iden ce , wh ich sup ports a co nv iction beyo nd a reas ona ble doub t fo r ea ch ele me nt of the ch ar ge d of fe ns e. Mr. Casta ne da wa s co nv icte d of aggra va ted se xua l assau l t abs en t ev iden ce that a dea dly we apo n wa s use d and ex hibited during the ass ault, an es se ntial ele me nt to the ch arge d of fe ns e. Did the jury co nv

ict Mr. Casta ne da on t he ba si s of insuf fic ient ev iden ce ?
Iss ue Fiv e: Th e trial co urt mu st hold an ev iden tiary he aring on a mo tion fo r ne w tr ial if the mo tion and af fida vits raise ma tters not det erm inable fro m the rec ord, and the ac cus ed co uld be en titled to rel i ef

. Th e trial
co urt fa iled to hold a he aring on t he motion, wh ich include d af fida vits fro m av ai l able mitigation witne ss es wh o def en se co uns el did not ca ll to t es t i fy. Did the co urt imp rope rly den y Mr. Casta ne da a he aring on his mo tion f or n ew trial?
Iss ue S i x: Th e DN A co urt co st ass es se d again st app ellant is an unc ons titutional tax on Mr. Casta ne da.

2S T A T E M E NT O F F A C T S M r
. C astane da and the State's sta r witne ss agre e on two imp ortan t fa cts : (1) t he dec ea se d co mp lainant wa s thre ate ning pe ople with a firea rm in an atte mpt t o fi nd his
mis sing truck ke ys ; and (2) Mr. Casta ne da killed the dec ea se d in res pon se to the se thre ats

. Th eir sto ries dive rge in rega r d t o t he circu ms tanc es surro undin g the dea th and wh at h app en ed in the af

term ath.
M r. Ca staneda' s Version of

the F ac ts Mr. Casta ne da and the dec ea se d co mp lainant, Keith Arms t r on g, we re

ac quainta nc es . (6 R.R. at 13 -1 4). In t he late mo rning of June 8, 20 12 , Mr. Casta ne da

wa s walk ing from the bus sto p whe n Armstro ng invited him over t o hi s house . (6 R.R.

at 15 -1 6). M r
. C as t an eda we nt to Arms trong 's hou se and had co ns en sua l se x with a pros titute, Pa tricia A sb er r y. ( 6 R.R. at 19 ). He wa s sup pos ed to pay $60 to Keith fo r the se x but he failed to do so . ( 6 R .R

. at 19) . Mr. Castan eda the n left alone to go to his grand fa the r's ho use dow

n th e s tree t. (6 R.R. at 2 0).
La ter that af

tern oon aroun d 2 or 3 p. m. , Mr. Casta ne da went bac k to Arms trong 's hou se . (6 R.R. at 22 ). Arms trong wa s ups et abo ut Mr. Casta ne da not pay ing him fo r the se x with Pa tricia. (6 R.R. at 22 ). Mr. Casta ne da told Arms trong that
he co uld pa y h im a fte r he purc has ed and so ld so me cra ck . (6 R.R. at 2 2).
A rms trong drov e Mr. Casta ne da aroun d tow n se arch ing fo r crac k, but the y did

not find any that me t Mr. Casta ne da's sta nda rds. (6 R.R. at 22 -2 3). Th ey the n we nt bac k to Arms trong 's hou se , wh ere ano the r individua l later arri ved with crac k co ca ine

3that Mr. Casta ne da purc has ed. (6 R.R. at 25 ). Mr. Cas t ane da the n lef t to ma ke so me sale s . (6 R. R. at 26 ).
Mr. Casta ne da the n he ade d bac k to his grand fa the r's hou se . (6 R.R. at 27 ). He

rec eiv ed a pho ne ca ll fro m a wo ma n tha t he wa s sup pos ed to me et that night, so he

we nt to the bus sto p ne ar Armst r on g' s ho u se. (6 R.R. at 27 -2 8). As Mr. Casta ne da wa s pas sing by Arms trong 's hou se , Arms trong wa s outs ide wa iving a gun and told Mr.
Casta ne da to co me ov er to him

. (6 R.R. at 28 -3 0). Mr

. C astane da co mp lied. Arms trong told Mr. Casta ne da that he wa nte d his truck ke ys ; Mr. Casta ne da said he did not hav e the m, and Arms trong orde red him into the hou se . (6 R .R

. at 30 -3 1).
Othe r res iden ts of t he ho u se - Pa tricia Asbu ry, Marga ret Stew art, and Charle s Ho wa rd

- w ere also orde red to go inside . (6 R.R. at 2 8- 31 ). Arms trong lock ed the burglar bars of the fro nt doo r and be gan look ing for his ke ys wh ile ev ery one ner vo usly wa ited. (6 R.R. at 32

). He wa s ang

ry, drunk , and

ca r r yi ng a pi sto l. (6 R.R. at 35 ). Pa tricia and Marga ret told Mr. Casta ne da “to be stil l be ca use Ke ith m ight s tart trippin g out ab out h is k ey s. ” (6 R.R. at 4 3). Afte r Arms trong co uld not find his ke ys , he be ga n thre ate ning individua ls. First, he put a gun to Pa t r i ci a' s head and sh e be gan to cry in fe ar. (6 R.R. at 37 ). Th en he app roac he d Mr. Casta ne da and told him , “I ' m no t say ing that yo u hav e my ke ys , but yo u're the only one wh o lef t.” ( 6 R .R. at 39 ). Mr. Casta ne da em ptied out his
poc ke ts with t he exce ption of his dop e. (6 R.R. at 39 -4 0). Arms trong told him to give
him the drugs but M r. Cas tane da re fus ed. (6 R.R. a t 41 ).

4Th e alterc ation the n es ca lated. Arms trong poin ted the gun in Mr. C as t ane da’ s

fa ce and rep ea ted his dem and to give hi m t he drugs

. (6 R.R. at 41 ). Mr. Casta ne da, wh o wa s sc ared at this poin t, tells Arms trong , “ge t that god dam n gun ou t of my fa ce ” and he sm ac ked i t

. (6 R.R. at 42 -4 3). Arms trong got ang ry and pus he d Mr. Casta ne da

on t he table

. (6 R.R. at 43 ). As Mr. Casta ne da sto od up, Arms trong poin ted the gun abo ut an inch fro m his ch es t. (6 R.R. at 43 -4 4). Mr. Casta ne da, thinki ng A r mst rong

wa s going to kill him , grabb ed the gun by the barre l with his lef t han d an d hi t Arms trong

a c oup le of

time s w ith his right. (6 R.R. a t 45 ).
Th e two me n the n be gan to wre stle. Mr. Casta ne da hit Arms trong with an upp erc ut, wh ich daze d A r mst r on g. (6 R.R. at 45 ). Th en all of the oth er pe ople in the
hou se - Charl es Ho wa rd, Pa tricia Asbu ry, and Martha Stew art - jump ed on Mr.
Casta ne da and be gan to pu nc h and hit him with obje cts in the hou se . (6 R.R. at 45 -4 7).
Mr. Casta ne da and A r mst r ong co ntinue d figh ting wh ile Mr. Casta ne da he ld on

to the barre l of the gun. Mr. Casta ne da kic ke d Arms trong in the tes ticles , wh i ch da zed Arms trong

. (6 R.R. at 49 ). Mr. Casta ne da let go of the gun, pun ch ed Arms trong

mu ltiple time s, and the n pus he d him ov er. (6 R.R. at 49). Arms trong atte mp ted to get up. He wa s on his ha nd s an d kn ee s wh en Mr. Casta ne da kic ke d him mu ltiple time s until Arms trong fe ll ov er. ( 6 R.R. at 61 -6 2). Charle s Ho wa rd, on his kn ee s, wa s grabb ing Mr. Casta ne da and trying to bri ng hi m t o the groun d. (6 R.R. at 62 ). Mr.
Casta ne da he ard so me one say , “G rab the gun. ” (6 R.R. at 62 ). Arms trong , still on the

5groun d, sh ot “like thre e time s. ” (6 R.R. at 62 ). In res pon se , Mr. Casta ne da grabb ed a pipe an d hits Arms trong

ap prox imate ly f

ive time s. (6 R.R. a t 62 -6 3).
M r
. C astane da sh ook Mr. Ho wa rd of f of him by hitting him with a ch air

. ( 6
R.R

. at 57)

. He t ried to ope n the burglar bars on the fro nt doo r but the y we re lock ed. (6 R.R. at 57 ). Mr. Casta ne da we nt to the side room wh ere M ar ga r et had gon e (6 R.R.

at 57 -5 8, 63 ). Mr

. Ho wa r d ca me up be hind Mr. Casta ne da and put him in a ch ok eh old
that ne arly lef

t Mr. Casta ne da unc ons cious

. ( 6 R .R. at 58 , 63 ). Mr. Casta ne da hit him with a c hair, wh ich f

orc ed Ho wa rd to let him go. (6 R.R. a t 58 , 6 3).
Mr. Cast an ed a be gan look ing throu gh the hou se fo r the ke ys to the burglar bars

. (6 R.R. at 63 ). Whe n he wa s bac k in Arms trong ’s room , M r
. C astane da he ard Marga ret Stew art leav e the hou se , so he fo llowe d af ter her

. ( 6 R .R

. at 63 ). Mr.
Casta ne da tes tified that he ch ase d Marga ret to the ne ighbo r's hou se be ca u se he wa s “m ad” and “p i ss ed of

f” be ca use he be lieve d sh e had the ke ys the wh ole time

. (6 R.R.
at 6 8- 69 ).
Mr. Casta ne da’ s grand fa the r, Edw ard Mos ely , co nf irme d that Mr. Casta ne da

ca me to his house sh ortly af t er wa r d. (5 R.R. at 19 9- 20 0). He tes tified that his grands on

wa s blee ding fro m his he ad and ne ck , his ey e wa s sw oll en , he wa s “bliste red up, ” and
his “fa ce wa s all sc ratch ed up. ” (5 R.R. at 20 3- 20 5). He t es tified that Mr. Casta ne da

wa sh ed of f the blood in his kitc he n sink, ask ed fo r a clean sh irt, and l ef t af t er about 15
min utes . (5 R.R. at 2 20 -2 23 ). Afte r Mr. Castane da lef

t his grand fa the r’s hou se , he we nt to the co rne r of the drive wa y and obs erved the police and para me dics arrive

. (6 R.R. at 71 -7 2). He had

6crac k co ca

ine in his pos se ss ion, so he did not wa nt to talk to the police

. (6 R.R. at 74 ).
He also did not “think it wa s worth talking to the pol i ce ” be ca use he did not know the
situation wa s as se ve re as it turne d out to be and he “w asn ’t think ing.” (6 R .R. at 74

).
Mr. Ca sta ne da th en we nt to an ab and one d ho use to s pe nd th e n ight. (6 R. R. at 74 -7 5).
Th e ne xt day Mr. Casta ne da we nt to his mo the r’s hou se . (6 R.R. at 79). His fa mily told him he sh ould talk to the police to tell the m his side of t he st or y, but Mr.
Casta ne da wa s sc ared and tho ught he ne ede d to hire a lawy er. (6 R.R. at 80 ). He wa s

arres ted thre e d ay s late r. (6 R.R. at 7 9- 80 ).
Mr. Casta ne da adm itted to l yi ng t o the police during the ir ques tioning of him

. He tes tified that he lied to the police wh en he told the m: he kic ke d do wn t he ba t hr oo m doo r wh ere Pa tricia wa s hiding (6 R.R. at 89 -9 0); he paid Arms trong fo r se x with Pa tricia (6 R.R. at 98); he had se x with Pa tricia on Wed ne sda y and Th ursda y (6
R.R. at 10 2- 10 3); and he hi t A r mst r ong with the gun and ch air. (6 R.R. at 11 5,
11 8- 11 9). He adm itted he did not tell the police abo ut Arms tr ong firing the gun thre e time s a t him (6 R.R. a t 10 9). The S tate' s Version of

the F ac ts Pa tricia Asbe rry wa s the only State's witne ss wh o co uld tes tify first-h an d to the

ev en ts that occu r red in Arms trong 's hou se that night. At the time of he r tes timo ny , sh e wa s hou se d in the Ha r r is Coun ty jail fo r fe lony pros titution. (4 R.R. at 94 -9 5). She had 15 prior pros titution co nv ictions , two fe lony co nv

ictions fo r fo rged ch ec ks , an d
fe lony co nv

ictions fo r fe lony drug sale s, nam ely co ca ine. (4 R.R. at 95 -9 8, 18 8- 18 9). She wa s se rving a 25 -y ea r paro le t er m wh en sh e wa s arres ted fo r the fe lony

7pros titution of fe ns e sh e wa s ch arge d with at the t i me of trial. (4 R.R. at 98 , 20 1). She adm itted to be ing a r eg ular crac k sm ok er wh ile on paro le and during the pe riod wh en the incide nt o cc urred. (4 R.R. a t 20 2). Asbe rry said that sh e had co ns en sua l se x with Mr. Casta ne da on Wed ne sda y night , t he da y be fo re the incide nt. (4 R.R. at 12 4- 12 5). Th is oc curre d at Arms trong 's
hou se in the ba ck

be droo m, wh

ich s he ren ted . (4 R.R. at 1 01 , 1 25 ). Asbe rry tes tified that Mr. Casta ne da ne xt ca me ov er to A r ms trong 's hou se on Th ursda y af

t er noo n to ch arge his ce ll pho ne
. (4 R.R. at 13 5- 13 6). She said that Mr.
Casta ne da and Arms trong lef t two or three time s af

terw ard to buy liquor and be er and

crac k. (4 R.R. a t 13 7). Whe n it wa s gettin g dark , Mr. Castane da lef t the hou se fo r abo ut 15 to 30
min utes ac co rding to Asbe rry. (4 R.R. at 13 9- 14 0). About this time , Keith Arms trong be gan look

ing fo r his ca r ke ys and wa s gettin g u ps et

. ( 4 R.R. at 14 1- 14 2). Afte r Mr.
Casta ne da ca me bac k, Arms trong told ev ery one to go in the hou se and he grabb ed his
gun fro m his room
. (4 R.R. at 14 2- 14 3). Arms trong ca me out into t he l i vi ng room , poin ted the gun at Ms. Asbe rry's he ad, and told he r he wa nte d the ke ys . (4 R.R. at 14 5). She be gan cry

ing an d ins isted tha t sh e d id no t ha ve the m. (4 R.R. a t 14 5).
Th en Arms trong we nt ov er to Mr. Casta ne da with the gun be hind hi s ba ck an d told him he wan ted his ke ys . (4 R.R. at 146 )

. A cc ording to Ms. Asbe rry, Mr. Castan eda
raise d up fro m the ch air he wa s sitting and hit Arms t r on g, knoc king him ac ros s the

room to the co uch. ( 4 R .R. at 14 6). She said Arms trong ne ve r thre ate ne d Mr.
Casta ne da with t he gu n. (4 R.R. at 14 6- 14 7). Mr. Casta ne da wa s “ste ady wh oop ing”

8Arms trong and the n slam me d him on the floor. (4 R.R. at 15 0). Acc ording to Asbe rry,

Keith Arms trong no longe r had the gun at t hi s po i nt and wa s no longe r mo ving af ter he hit the floo r. (4 R.R. at 14 9, 15 2). She tes tified that M r. Casta ne da kic ke d his tee th

ou t , be gan hitting him with the pipe , and the n hit him in the he ad with a st ov e an d

mu sic bo x. ( 4 R .R

. at 15 2). Asbe rry tried to sto p Mr. Casta ne da by hitting him in the bac k of the he ad. (4 R.R. at 15 2). He res pon ded by hitting he r with the pipe and ask ing he r, “y ou go ing to tak e up fo r him .” ( 4 R. R. at 15 2, 15 8). Asbe rry tes tified that sh e went bac k to he r bath room and lock ed it. (4 R.R. at 16 1- 16 2). She he ard Marga ret hollering “I don 't kn ow wh ere no gun i s” and Mr.
Casta ne da ask

ing wh ere the gun wa s. (4 R.R. at 16 2). She tes tified that it wa s quiet fo r

a fe w min utes and the n M r
. Casta ne da kic ke d in the bath room doo r wh ere sh e wa s hiding. (4 R.R. at 16 5-166 )

. M r
. Casta ne da had a pipe in his han d ac co rding to Asbe rry. (4 R.R. at 16 8). She tes tified that Mr. Casta ne da the n se xua lly assau l t ed he r. (4 R.R. at 16 9- 17 3). He stopp ed and lef t af ter he aring the burglar bar doo r slam

. (4
R.R. at 17 5). Asbe rry the n we nt outs ide to se e the am bulan ce and tell the police wh at hap pe ne d. (4 R. R. at 17 7- 17 8). Conflic ting testimony - th e sexual

assaul t Right af ter d ef en ding h ims elf , Mr. Cas tane da le ft th e h ous e o n Van Fle et Stre et and we nt to his Gra ndf

ather ’s ho me. Th ere wa s ne ve r a se xua l en co unte r with Ms. Asbe rry later that day

. Ho we ve r, during trial, Ms. Asbe rry tes tifi ed t ha t af ter Mr.
Casta ne da def

en ded him se lf aga i ns t M r
. Arms trong , he had se x with he r witho ut he r

co ns en t. (4 R.R. at 17 2). M r
. C as tane da ca me to the bath room wh ere Ms. Asbe rry wa s

9hiding. He ope ne d the doo r and told he r to co me out of the bath room ; Ms. Asbe rry

did so wi t ho u t ob jec tion. (4 R.R. at 16 9). Mr. Casta ne da had a me tal bar in his han d wh en he firs t sa

w M s. Asb erry . H ow ev er, he put th e m eta l bar do wn on the tab le ne xt

to him during the allege d en co unte r. (4 R.R. at 17 6). Mr. Casta ne da wa s ac ting diff ere nt than the first time Ms. Asbe rry me t him

. (4 R.R. at 14 0). His wh ole attitude had ch ang ed. His vo ice wa s diff ere nt. He wa s not the sam e pe rso n. (4 R.R. at 16 7).
Th e jury fo und Mr. Casta ne da gu i l t y of se xua lly ass aulting Ms. Asbe rry and the

mu rder o f M r. Arm stro ng. (6 R.R. at 1 87 -8 8). Other State'

s Witnesses Off ice r G. Salcido wa s the first police of fic er wh o arrive d at the crim e sc en e. (3
R.R. at 47 ). He wa s trying to get info rma tion fro m Marga ret, wh o wa s sitting on the side of the stre et, wh en Asbe rry wa lke d by the sc en e (3 R.R. at 48 ). Asbe rry said sh e had be en rape d. (3 R.R. at 49 -5 0). S al ci do an d ano the r of fic er se arch ed the hou se , and
fo u nd a pe rso n lying on the floo r in a poo l of bloo d, and an olde r gen tlem an i n t he
hou se. (3 R.R. at 52 -5 3). Salcido tes tified that the hou se wa s “all torn up, ” and “it wa s all cha os in the re. ” Salcido later tra ns porte d Asb erry to th e h os pital. (3 R.R. at 5 6).
Owe n To mp kins wa s the crim e sc en e of fic er wh o doc um en ted the crim e sc en e. (3 R.R. at 77 ). He des cribe d the house as “ex trem ely bloo dy

... fa irly unk em pt itself

,

no t ve ry cle an. ” (3 R.R. at 82 ). He tes tified that Arms trong , the dec ede nt, did no t app ea r to hav e be en disturb ed from where he initiall y fe ll. (4 R.R. at 18 ). He did not find a gu n or an y bull ets or sh ell ca sings

. (4 R.R. at 63 ). He fo und brok en table legs

10co ve red in bloo d (4 R.R. at 29 ), brok en ch air legs co ve red in bloo d (4 R.R. at 33- 34 ), and a m eta l table leg c ov ere d in b lood. (4 R.R. a t 47 -4 8). Mark Stahlin wa s the hom icide of fic er on the ca se . (4 R.R. at 26 8). He said that
the hou se wh ere the hom icide occurred “look ed like a torna do had gon e throu gh.
No thi ng r ea l l y wa s in its plac e. ... Th ere wa s bloo d on the wa lls, bloo d on the ca rpe t. Th e co mp lainant, Ba ron Arms trong , wa s laying on the floo r.” (4 R.R. at 273 )

. Th ere

we re brok en of

f item s fro m a wo ode n ch air ne ar the dec ede nt. (4 R.R. at 28 3- 28 4).
Th ere wa s a wo od en table lying on its side . (4 R.R. at 28 5). Th ere we re me tal table legs
clos e to the b od y an d further awa y. (4 R.R. at 28 6). He did not l oc ate any se me n in the bac k be droo m, nor did he fi nd an y evi den ce of se xua l ass ault. (4 R.R. at 30 2, 30 5). He did f ind a ca r ke y a nd h ous e k ey s in Arms trong 's be droo m. (4 R.R. a t 30 8).
S erge ant C.E

. Elliott wa s ano the r hom icide of fic er wh o wo rke d the ca se . ( 5
R.R. at 84 ). He too k pho tos of Mr. Casta ne da wh en he wa s arr es t ed thre e day s af ter the incide nt. (5 R.R. at 11 0). Th ere we re no inj uries to Mr. Casta ne da's bac k ac co rding

to Ellio t t

. ( 5 R .R

. at 11 2). Th ere wa s a sc ratch ac ros s his right fo rearm with dried bloo d. (5 R.R. at 113). He also had an abra sion on his right han d kn uck le. (5 R.R. at 11 4).
Dr. Albert Chu wa s the ass istan t me dical ex am iner fo r the Har r i s C ou nty Ins titute of Fo ren sic Sci en ce s wh o ex am ined Arms trong

. (5 R.R. at 11 8, 12 2). He

tes tified that Arms trong 's ca use of dea th wa s blunt traum a of the he ad and ne ck

. (5
R.R. at 15 3). Th ere wa s blee ding of diff ere nt laye rs of the brain, wh ich ca n ca use dea th. (5 R.R. at 15 3). He tes tifi ed t hat the re wa s “quite a bit of fa cial traum a” and a

11def

orm ed sh ape of the he ad due to fra cture s of the fa cial bon es . (5 R.R. at 13 4). He also had mu ltiple abra sion s ac ros s the ba ck of t he he ad. (5 R.R. at 13 9). In Chu's opin ion, Arms trong

ha d be en struc k m ultiple time s. (5 R.R. a t 14 1- 14 2).
Dr. Jen nife r Lo ve is a fo ren sic anth ropo logist at the Ha rris C ou nt y Ins titute of
Fo ren sic Scien ce s wh o ex am ined Arms trong

. (5 R.R. at 16 4). S he tes tified that Arms trong ’s fra cture s we re “co ns isten t wi t h a mi ni mu m of fiv e imp ac ts to the fa ce .” (5 R.R. at 17 4). Th ere we re a fe w fra cture s to the sk ull that we re likely a res ult of the imp ac t to the fa ce . (5 R.R. at 17 5). Th ree ribs we re fra cture d. (5 R.R. at 177 ). Th ere

we re s ev eral f

ractu res in his ne ck . (5 R.R. at 1 81 ). M itigation Witnesses Wh o Provided Af fidav its with M otion fo r New Trial Def en se co uns el ca lled no mitigation witne ss es at the pun ishm en t pha se of t he
trial (7 R.R. at 7), but mu ltiple witne ss es we re av ailable to t es t i fy ab out mitigating
circu ms tances r eg ar di ng Mr. Casta ne da. (2 C.R. at 91 -9 2). Mr. Casta ne da rec eiv ed an

autom atic life se nte nc e fo r the en han ce d aggra va ted se xua l assa u l t co nv

iction (7 R.R.
at 7 -8 ; 1 C.R. at 7 3), an d 4 5 y ea rs in p rison fo r m urder. (7 R.R. a t 8; 2 C.R. at 8 1).
Lin da Casta ne da is Mr. Casta ne da’ s mo the r. (2 C.R. at 12 0). He r af fida vit

at tac he d to the Motion fo r Ne w Trial said that sh e co uld tes tify abo ut his histor y of bipo lar and sc hizoph ren ia. (2 C.R. at 1 20 ). Shandr'a Mos ley Ba nk s is a relative of Mr. Casta ne da’ s. (2 C.R. at 12 3). She

sta ted in he r af

fida vit that Mr. C as t an ed a had be en me dicate d fo r me ntal he alth issue s sinc e ele me ntary sc hoo l; he wa s struc k by a ca r sh ortly af ter be ing diagn os ed with bipo lar and sc hi z op hr en i a wh en he wa s a yo ung ma n; he has be en treate d fo r tho se

12me ntal i l l ne ss es fo r ma ny ye ars; and sh e saw him the af tern oon af

ter the incide nt and

co uld tes tify

ab out injuries he ha d s uff ere d as a re sult. (2 C. R. at 12 3- 12 4).
R u t hi e Hu dson is Mr. Casta ne da’ s grand mo the r. (2 C.R. at 12 7). She sta ted in
he r af fida vit that Mr. Casta ne da wa s diagn os ed with ADH D and bipo lar, and rec eiv ed

treatm en t at De Pe lchin Cen ter. (2 C.R. at 12 7). She co uld also tes tify to the wo unds
sh e s aw he rec eiv ed af

ter th e inc iden t. (2 C.R. at 1 27 ).
Courtne y Hutc hins on and Shunta Richard so n are Mr. Cas tane da’ s co usins

. (2
C.R. at 1 18 , 1 31 ). T he y b oth co uld tes tify to h is m en tal ill ne ss . (2 C.R. at 1 18 , 1 31 ). Mary Ba nk s is Mr. Casta ne da's aunt; he r af fida vit sta ted that Mr. C as t aneda wa s hit by a c ar, wh ich re sulte d in h ea d injuries . (2 C.R. at 1 08 ). J’o nze Re’ Ba nk s has kn ow n Mr. Castaneda fo r 16 ye ars. (2 C.R. at 13 4). He disc u ss ed Mr. Casta ne da’ s strugg les with me ntal ill ne ss and his va rious pos itive ch arac ter tra

its in h is af

fida vit (2 C.R. at 1 34

).

13S U M M A R Y O F T H E A R G U M E NT Tw o co mp licate d se rious fe lonies we re tried toge the r - aggra va ted se xua l assa ult and mu rder. Th e jury ch arg e ha d num ero us errors
. Tw o, the fa ilure to include the
less er- include d of

fe ns es of aggra

va ted as sault and ma ns laughte r we re obje cte d to. The ev iden ce wa s raise d to sup port tho se instruc tions and the trial co urt erre d by
fa ili ng to include the m. Th e reque ste d se lf-d ef en se instruc tion wa s so co mp licate d
that it failed to s uff

icien tly ap prise the jury o f th e p rope r sta nda rd an d bu rden

. Th e ev iden ce to sup port the aggra va ted portio n of the se xua l ass ault conv

iction

wa s insuf fic ient be ca use t he r e wa s no ev iden ce to sup port the we apo n wa s use d or

ex hibited during the ch arge d co nduc t. It wa s on a table - but its me re pre se nc e is insuf fic ient t o s upp ort th at c onv iction.
Du ring the pun ishm en t ph as e of the trial, no witne ss es we re of fe red in sup port of Mr. Casta ne da. Po st- trial, a moti on fo r ne w trial wa s filed with num ero us af fida vits of witne ss es wh o co uld hav e tes tified to Mr. Cast an ed a’ s pe rso nal strugg les. Th e trial

co urt ref use d to have a he ari ng des pite ne w ev iden ce bing prof

fe red. Fina lly, the co st bill has a $25 - DN A tes ting fe e. Un der law fro m this co u r t , t hat co st sh ould be strick en
.

14A R G U M E NT

Iss ue One : A de fen dant is en titl ed to a less er - i nc lud ed of fen se inst ruc tio n in the jury ch arge wh en req ue st ed

. Mr
. Castane da's de fen se co uns el pro pe rly req ue sted an inst ruc tio n on the le ss er includ ed of

fen se of aggravate d ass ault be caus e Mr
. Castane da te st i fi ed he did no t inte nd to kill Mr
. Arms tro ng. The jud ge ref us ed the req ue st . Did the jud ge impro pe rly ref us e the req ue st ed inst ruc tio n?
M r
. Casta ne da’ s reque st fo r an instruc tion on aggra va ted ass ault wa s den

ied by
the trial cou r t

. ( 6 R.R. at 14 4). A trial co urt ma y instruc t the jury on a less er include d
of fe ns e if (1) the of

fe ns e in quest i on is a less er include d of fe ns e unde r Article 37 .0 9 of
the Te xas Code of Criminal Pro ce dure and (2) the re is so me ev iden ce that wo uld
pe rmit a rationa

l jury to find that the def

en dan t i s no t guilty of the grea ter of fe ns e but
is guilty of the less er include d of fe ns e. Ha y w ard v. State , 15 8 S.W. 3d 47 6, 47 8 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 05 ); M

oore v. State , 96 9 S.W. 2d 4, 8 (Te x. Crim. App. 19 98 ). If bot h
pron gs of the tes t are me t, the er r or i s r ev iew ed fo r harm

. Trevino v. State , 10 0 S.W. 3d
23 2, 24 2 (T ex . Crim . Ap p. 20 03 ).
Be ca use the less er i nc l u de d of fe ns e of aggra

va ted ass ault me ets bot h pron gs of
the tes t and Mr. Castan eda wa s harm ed by the err or i n no t including the of fe ns e in the
ch arge , t he j u dg ment and mu rder co nv iction mu st be rev ers ed, and the ca se rem and ed
fo r a n ew trial bas ed on the pro pe r ch arge
. Ag gra vated assaul

t is a l esser incl uded of fense of murder
An instruc tion is required on a less er include d of fe ns e wh ere the proo f required
fo r the grea ter of

fe ns e include s the proo f ne ce ss ary to es tablish the less er i nc l u ded
of fe ns e. Fo rest v. State , 98 9 S.W. 2d 36 5, 36 7 (Te x. Crim. App. 19 99 ). A pe rso n

15co mm

its aggra va ted ass ault if he inten tionally, kn ow ingly, or reckle ss ly ca use s se rious bod ily injury to ano the r. T E X

. P E N A L C O D E A N N

. § 22 .0 2( A )( L ). A pe rso n co mm its

mu rder if he inten tionally or kn ow i ngly ca use s ano the r's dea th or inten ds to ca use

se rious bod ily injury and co mm its an ac t cle arly da ng er ou s to hum an life that ca use s the de ath of

an individua

l. T E X

. P E N A L C O D E A N N

. § 19 .0 2( B ).
Com paring the sta tutory def in i t i ons , the ele me nts required to prov e aggra va ted

ass ault are include d in the el eme nt s ne ce ss ary to es tablish mu rder. Th ere fo re, aggra va ted ass ault is a less er include d of fe ns e of mu rder. Sal

az ar v. State , 87 S.W. 3d
680 , 68 3 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 02 ). See Ba rrios v. State , 38 9 S.W. 3d 382 , 399 ( Tex

. App. —T ex ark ana 20 12 , pe t. ref ’d)(e xp laining that “all of the eleme nts of aggra va ted

ass ault we re r eq uired to prov e mu rder in this ca se , aggra va ted ass ault is a less er- include d of

fe ns e of mu rder.

.. ”) citing Dowden v. State , 758 S.W. 2d 26 4, 26 9 (Te x. Crim. App. 19 88 ) an d Fo rest v. Stat e , 9 89 S.W. 2d 36 5, 36 7– 68 (Te x. Crim. App. 19 99 ). The ev idence pr esented at trial support

s th e lesser included of fense of ag gra vated assaul

t Th e se co nd pron g of t he t es t i s sat isfie d if the re is so me ev

iden ce that wo uld allow a rationa l jury to find that the def en dant i s on l y guilty of aggra va ted ass ault.
Sal az ar , 87 S.W. 3d at 68 3. Th e co urt ma y not co ns ider the cre dibility of the ev iden ce . W ortham v. State , 41 2 S.W. 3d 55 2, 55 8 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 13 ). Any thing mo re t ha n a

sc intill a of ev

iden ce en t i t les Mr. Casta ne da to the less er ch arge , rega rdles s of wh eth er the ev iden ce is we ak , imp ea ch ed, or co ntrad icte d. Id .; Cavaz os v. State , 38 2 S .W .3 d 377 , 38 3 (T ex . Crim . Ap p. 20 12 ).
Th e requis ite intent of t he def en dan t is a pre dom inant fa cto r in det erm ining wh eth er an ag gr av ate d ass ault ch arge app lies. Le ss er include d of fe ns es hav e be en 16allowe d wh ere the def en dan t pre se nte d evi dence that ne gate d an ele me nt of inten t in
the ch arge d of

fe ns e. Worth am , 41 2 S.W. 3d at 55 8. Often , t he lack of inten t is

es tablish ed throu gh th e d ef en dan t's te stim ony
. An agg r avate d ass ault instruc tion is prop er ev en if the def en dan t killed the dec ea se d. Fo r ex am pl e, the co urt in Lawson v. State allowe d a less er include d of fe ns e of
aggra va ted ass ault wh ere La

ws on tes tified that he did not inten d to ki l l or sh oot the dec ea se d. Lawson v. State , 77 5 S.W. 2d 49 5, 49 9 (Te x. App. -Aus tin 19 89 , pe t. ref d). Th is

tes timo ny ne ga ted the inten t ele me nt of the ch arge
. Id

. At trial, La

ws on co nf

es se d

t ha t he sh ot the dec ea se d, but claim ed the killing wa s an ac cide nt. Id

. at 496

. Th e dec ea se d had thre ate ne d La ws on with a pisto l, and La ws on fo ught bac k by jabbin g and pou nding the dec ea se d. Id

. Du ring the fi gh t , the pisto l disc harge d, killing the dec ea se d. Id

. At t r i al , the co urt allowe d ch arge s on ma ns laughte r and se lf-d ef en se , but den ied the reque ste d aggra

vat ed ass ault ch arge
. Id

. Th e app ellate co urt he ld that
La ws on wa s e ntitled to the reque ste d ag grav ate d as sau lt cha rge, an d the jury w as fre e to b eliev e o r rejec t L aw so n's te stim ony
. Id . a t 50 0.
Em pha sis on the defend an t ' s tes timo ny is also use d to es tablish inten t, rathe r than ne gate it. In Jo hnson v. St at e , t he def en dan t tes tified that wh en the dec ea se d slap pe d him , he loade d the gun and sh ot

. Jo hn s on v. State , 91 5 S.W. 2d 65 3, 65 8 (Te x. App. -H ous ton [1 4t h Dis t.) 19 96 , pe t. ref ’d). Th e def

en dan t tes tified that he did not inten d to kil l the dec ea se d, but did inten d to get the dec ea se d of f of him

. Id

. Th e co urt

not ed that an aggra

va t ed ass ault ch arge wo uld be required if the re wa s tes timo ny indica ting a lack of inten t to kill the dec ea se d. Id

. at 66 0. Ho we ve r , t he defe nda nt's

tes timo ny sh ow ed a delibe rate inten t to kill the dec ea se d. Id

.. Be ca use the def

en dan t's 17tes t i mo ny es tablish ed rathe r than ne gate d inten t, the co urt den ied the reque ste d
aggra va ted as sau lt instruc tion. Id

. Mr. Casta ne da’ s tes timo ny ne gate s inten t rathe r than es tablish es int en t

. Similar

to the def en dan t in Lawson v. State , Mr. Casta ne da sp ec ifica lly tes tified that he did not inten d to kill Mr. Arms trong

. Ide ntica l t o La wso n, wh o fo ught bac k wh en the dec ea se d thre ate ne d him with a pisto l, M r
. C ast ane da fo ught bac k wh en Mr. Arms trong threat en ed hi m with a pisto l. Un like the def en dan t in Jo hnson , wh o tes tified
that he inten ded to sh oot the dec ea se d, Mr. Casta ne da did not tes tify that he inten ded
to h urt Mr. Arms trong

. Be ca use a juror co uld rely on Mr. Casta ne da’ s tes timo ny to find that Mr.
Casta ne da did not inten d to kill Mr. Arms trong , Mr. Castane da wa s entitled to a ch arge on the less er included of fe ns e of aggra

va ted ass ault. Th e cre dibility of Mr.
Casta ne da's tes timo ny ne gating inten t res ts in the han ds of the jury; the y al one dec ide wh eth er Mr. Cas tane da w as guilty of m urder or ag

grav ate d as sau lt. The er ror in th e ch arg

e resulted in sufficient h arm to warrant r eversal
If error is fo und in the ch arge , the deg r ee of ha rm ne ce ss ary fo r rev ers al dep en ds on wh eth er the app ellant obje cte d to the char ge during trial. Al manza v. State , 68 6 S.W. 2d 15 7, 17 1 (1984)

. If the error in the ch arge wa s time ly obje cte d to, rev ers al
is required so long as t he er ror is not harm less

. Id

. Th e error is not harm less if it is
“ca lculate d to injure the rights of def en dan t.” Id

. Th e defe nda nt's harm mu st be

ca lculate d in light of the en tire jury ch arge , the sta te of the ev id en ce , t he argum en t of

co uns el, and any oth er rel eva nt info rma tion rev ea led by the trial rec ord. Id

. Ha rm

ex ists wh en the pe nalty imp os ed fo r t he ch arged of fe ns e ex ce eds the pot en tial pe nalty 18fo r the less er- include d of fe ns e. Williams v. State , 31 4 S.W. 3d 45 , 53 (Te x. App .- Tyl er 20 10 , p et. ref

' d).
M r
. C as tane da's def

en se co uns el prop erly obje cte d to the error in the ch arge during trial. (6 R.R. at 14 4). Th ere fo re, Mr. Casta ne da is en titled to rev ers al so long

as the erro r wa s n ot h arm less

. Th e er r or he r e is app aren t. Th e pe nalty imp os ed fo r mu rder fa r ex ce eds the
pe nalty imp os ed fo r aggra va ted ass ault. Aggrav ate d ass ault is a se co nd deg ree felony
pun isha ble by imp rison me nt fo r any t er m of not mo re than 20 ye ars or less than 2
ye ars. T E X

. P E N A L C O D E A N N

. §§ 22 .0 2( B ), 12 .3 3(

A ). Ins tea d, Mr. Cas t aneda wa s

se nte nc ed to 45 ye ars in priso n fo r mu rder (7 R.R. at 8). Ev en if the jur y rejec ted the

se lf-d ef en se ch arge , the re wa s still ev iden ce t ha t M r
. Casta ne da did not ac t with the
inten t to kill. If M r
. Casta ne da's ac tions me rely am oun ted to aggra va ted ass ault, his

ma xim um se nte nc e wo uld be less than half of the se nte nc e he rec eiv ed. Th ere fo re, Mr. Casta ne da wa s harm ed wh en the less er- include d of fe ns e of aggra

va ted ass ault wa s den ied.

19Iss ue Two : A jury may find a de fen dant no t guilt y of a gre ate r of fen se , but guilt

y of a le ss er-inc lud ed of fen se . The trial co urt de nied Mr
. Casta ne da's req ue st fo r a jury inst ruc tio n of the le ss er-inc lu de d of

fen se of mans laugh te r. Did the trial co urt co mmit re ve rsibl e e rro r by

de ny ing th is re que st ?
Mr. C as t aneda reque ste d ma ns laughte r be include d in the ch arge and the co urt de ni ed t he r eques t. (6 R.R. at 14 3- 45 ). Th ere is a two -p rong ed tes t to det erm ine wh eth er a de fen da nt i s en titled to a jury instruc tion on a less er- include d of fe ns e. See
T E X

. C O D E C RI M

. P RO C

. A N N

. A R T

. 37 .0 9, and disc uss ion supra ;. First, doe s the proo f

ne ce ss ary to es tablish the ch arge d of fe ns e al so include the less er of fe ns e? Cavaz

os v. St at e , 382 S.W. 3d 37 7, 38 2 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 12 ). Th e co urt ans we rs this ques tion by

co mp aring the ele ment s allege d in the indictm en t with the ele me nts of the less er of fe ns e. Id

. Sec ond , the co urt mu st det ermi ne i f the re is so me ev iden ce fro m wh ich a rationa l jury co u l d ac quit the def en dan t of the grea ter of

fe ns e, but find him guilty of
the less er- include d of

fe ns e. Sweed v. State , 35 1 S.W. 3d 63 , 67- 68 (Te x. Crim. App.
20 11 ). Th e first ste p is a ques tion of law, and doe s not dep en d on eviden ce pre se nte d

at trial. Cavaz

os , 38 2 S.W. 3d at 38 2. Th e se co nd ste p is a q u es t i on of fa ct and is bas ed

on the ev iden ce pre se nte d at t rial. Id . a t 38 3. The r equested jury c

ha rge of manslaug

hter is, as a matter

of la w, a lesser- included

of fense of murder.
A n of fens e is less er include d if, in relev ant part, it “is es tablish ed by proo f of
the sam e or less than all the fa cts required to es tablish the co mm ission of the offens e ch arge d” or “if it diff

ers fro m the ch arge d of

fe ns e only in res pe ct to a lesser cu l pable

me ntal sta te. ” T E X

. C O D E C RI M

. P RO C

. A N N

. A R T

. 37 .0 9(1 ),(3 ). An of fe ns e qualifies unde r Article 37. 09 (1) as less er include d i f the indictme nt fo r t he grea ter off en se eithe r allege s all of the ele me nts of the less er- include d of fe ns e, or the co urt de t er mines the y 20are non eth ele ss fun ction ally the sam e or less than tho se required to prov e the ch arge d

of fe ns e. See Ex part

e Watson , 30 6 S.W. 3d 259 , 273 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 09 ); see also
M cKith an v. State , 3 24 S.W. 3d 58 2, 58 8 (T ex . Crim . Ap p. 20 10 ).
In Cavaz os v. State , the Court of C r i mi na l Appe als wa s fa ce d with a sim ilar
ques tion as the one he re: is ma ns laughte r a less er- includ ed of fense of mu rder, thus

ren derin g the jury ch arge of only mu rder rev ers ible error? Cavaz os , 38 2 S.W. 3d at 38 4.
Th e diff ere nc es be twe en ma ns laughte r and t he ch arged of fe ns e in Cavaz

os are that

mu rder include s inten t to ca use se rious bodi l y i nj u r y and the co mm ission of an ac t cle arly dan gero us to hum an life, wh ere as ma ns laughte r requires rec kle ss ne ss , wh ich 1s

a co ns cious disre gard of a sub sta ntial and unjustif iable risk rega rding circu ms tanc es or

res ults s urround ing th e c ond uct. Id

. Th e Court det erm ined that sh oot ing the vic tim with a firea rm, wh ich wa s the

co mmi ss i on of an act clea rly dange rous to hum an life, is the circum sta nc e surroun di ng the co nduc t, not the res ult itself , and wo uld be the sam e unde r eithe r mu rder or

ma ns laughte r. Id

. Th e Court the n det erm ined the inten t ele me nt of bot h crim es . Id

. Th e def en dan t in t ha t ca se sh ot the vic tim with a dea dly we apo n, imp lying that he had
the inten t to ca use the vic t i m' s dea th. Id

. In co mp arison , the def

inition of rec kle ss ne ss is disre garding

a risk tha t circ um sta nc es ex ist or th at a res ult will occ ur. Id

. Th e C ou rt co nc luded that ca using dea th wh ile co ns cious ly disre garding a risk
that dea th will oc cur diff

ers from inten ding to ca use se rious bod ily injury with dea th

res ulting only in the res pe ct that a less culpa ble me ntal sta te es tablish es its

co mm ission

. Id

. ( cit ing T E X

. C O D E C RI M

. P RO C

. A N N

. A RT

. 37 .0 9(3 )). Th e Court

co nc luded tha t m ans laughte r is a le ss er- include d of fe ns e o f m urder. Id

. 21In the ca se sub judice , the bas e ele me nts of mu rder, as allege d in the indictm en t,

are: (1) John atha n Rena rd Casta ne da (2) did unlaw fully inten d to ca use se r ious bod ily injur y t o Ba r on Keith Arms trong and (3) did ca use the dea th of Mr. Arms trong by (4)
inten tionally and kn ow

ingly co mmi tting an ac t cle arly dan gero us to hum an life,

nam ely strikin g Mr. Arms tron g wi t h hi s han d and with an unk now n obje ct (2 C.R. at 13 ). In co mp arison , the bas e ele me nts of ma ns laughte r are (1) a pe r so n (2) rec kle ss ly (3) c aus ing th e d ea th o f a n ind ividual. T E X

. P E N A L C O D E A N N

. § 19 .0 4. J u st as wa s the cas e in Cavaz os , the only diff

ere nc e betw ee n the two of fe ns es ar e the inten t to ca use se riou s bo di l y injury and the co mm ission of an ac t cle arly dan gero us to hum an life, as co mp ared to the rec kle ss ne ss el ement of ma ns laughte r. Th is Court ca n use the sam e reas onin g app lied in Cavaz os to det erm ine that ca using dea th wh ile co ns cious ly disre garding a risk that dea th will oc cu r di ff ers fro m inten ding

to ca use se rious bod

ily injury with dea th res ulting only in the res pe ct that a less culpa ble me ntal sta te es tabl i sh es its co mm ission

. Man slaugh ter is a less er- include d
of fe ns e o f m urder in this ca se . The r ecor d suppo rts a convic

tion of o nly mansla ugh ter. Th e se co nd ste p in the “les se r-inc luded of fe ns e” ana lysis is to det ermi ne if

t here is any ev

iden ce raise d that the def en dan t wa s guilty of only the less er of fe ns e. Cavaz os , 38 2 S.W. 3d at 38 5. More sp ec ifica lly, co urts hav e he ld that ma ns laughte r is a less er- included offe ns e of mu rder only if the re is so me ev iden ce of sud den pas sion in
the ca se arising fro m ade quate ca use . Westbro ok v . St at e , 84 6 S.W. 2d 15 5, 15 9 (Te x. App. -F ort Wort h 19 93 , no pe t.). Bo th “ade quate ca use ” and “sud den pas sion ” are def ined as : 22(1) “Ade quate ca use ” me ans ca use that wo ul d co mm only prod uce a

deg ree of ang er, rage , res en tm en t, or terro r in a pe rso n of ordina ry tem pe r, s uff

icien t to re nde r the m ind inc apa ble o f c ool re fle ction

. (2) “Sudde n pas sion ” me ans pas sion direc tly ca use d by

.. . the individua l killed or ano the r ac ting with the pe rso n killed wh ich pas sion ari se s at the time of the of fe ns e a nd is no t so lely th e re sult o f f orm er p rov oc ation.
T E X

. P E N A L C O D E A N N

. §19 .0 2( A ) ( 1)

. Any ev

iden ce that the def

en dan t ac ted unde r the imm ediate influe nc e of pas sion , witho ut time fo r co ol ref lec tion, arising fro m ade quate prov oc at i on , su ppo rts sud den pas sion

. See Burns v. State , 92 3 S.W. 2d 23 3, 23 6 (Te x. App. -[ 14 th Dis t.] 19 96 ). Som eth ing mo re than the pre se nc e of sim ple fe ar i s required ; the re mu st be evi de nc e t ha t the def en dan t's sta te of min d ren dere d him
inca pab le of co ol ref

lec tion. See Go nzal

es v. State , 71 7 S.W. 2d 35 5, 35 7-58 ( Tex

. Crim. App. 19 86 ).
In orde r for a ma ns l aughter ch arge to be prop er, the re mu st be ev iden ce pre se nte d at trial of the co ndition of the def en dan t’s min d at the time of t he of fe ns e. M erch ant v. State , 81 0 S.W. 2d 30 5, 31 0 (Te x. App.-D allas 19 91 , pe t ref ’d). In Willis v. State , the Court reas one d that no “sud den pas sion ” wa s pre se nt be ca use the “[a ]p pe llant’s sta tem en t did not dem on st r at e suc h a sud den pas sion arising fro m ade quate ca se .” Willis v. State , 93 6 S.W. 2d 30 2, 30 9 (Te x. App. -T yle r, 19 96 ). Furth er, “[a ]p pe llant ne ve r sta t e[

d] that the incide nt ca use d him to be af raid or ang

ry, or that
he ac ted und er a ny

em otion al distre ss .” Id

. Th e rec ord i n t his ca se co ntains direc t ev iden ce that Mr. Casta ne da wa s unde r the imm ediate influe nc e of sud den pas sion arising fro m an ade quate ca use . Mr.
Casta ne da tes tified at trial abo ut the fe ar and ang er he fe lt during his alterc ation with Mr. Arm stro ng: 23Q: (Mr. Scott ) So onc e he put the gun in yo ur fa ce , wh at do es i t do t o you ps yc holo gically, m ea ning w hat are yo u think

ing? A: (Mr. Cas tane da) I'm s ca red. I f lip out. My

wh ole d em ea nor ch ang ed

.. .. . Q: Did yo u think

he wa s g oing t o k

ill yo u or n ot? A: Ye s, sir, I did. Q: So y ou're in fe ar of

yo ur life, right? A: Ye s, sir. Q:

.. . And yo ur ac tions , I gath er the n, we re prote ctiv e at that poin t in time ,

co rrec t? A: Ye s, sir. (6 R.R. at 42 -4 3, 45 ). Th e pre se nt ca se is di st i ng u i sh able fro m that in Willis

. Mr.
Casta ne da ac ted with sud den pas sion when he entere d into the phy sica l alterc ation with Mr. Arms trong

. Furth er, Mr. Casta ne da's ac ti ons aros e fro m ade quate ca use ;

na mel y, M r
. Arms trong thre ate ning ev ery one in the hou se with a gun. Th ere was direc t tes timo ny in this ca se that M r
. C as tane da wa s ex pe rienc ing inten se em otion s wh en he wa s lock ed in the hou se on Van Fl ee t , and he ac ted unde r sud den pas sion wh en the gun wa s p ointe d at h im. The er ror wa s ha rmful and requires reversa l.
Th e def ense attorn ey ma de a sp ec ific reque st to the trial co urt fo llowing the
clos e of ev

iden ce and prior to clos ing argum en ts. (6 R.R. at 14 4- 45 ). Th e trial co urt den ied def en se co uns el's reque st fo r the less er- include d of fe ns e inst r u ction. (6 R.R. at 14 5). Be ca use a ti mel y ob j ec tion wa s ma de to the jury ch arge , a sh ow ing of “so me harm ” to a def

en dan t will ma nda te rev ers al. Ba rron v. State , 35 3 S.W. 3d 87 9, 88 3 (Te x. 24Crim. App. 20 11 ). Mr. Casta ne da rec eiv ed 45 ye ars fo r mu rder - a co nv i ction of a less er of fe ns e migh t we ll hav e res ulted in a sh orte r se nt en ce . Th ere fo re Mr.
Casta ne da s hou ld be ac quitted of the m urder co nv

iction.

25Iss ue Thre e: The jury ch arge mus t dist inctly set fo rth the law

a pp li cabl e to the cas e. The trial co urt su bmit te d a jury ch arge tha t was co nfus ing and did no t cl early i ns tr uc t the jury that the st ate carrie d the bu rde n of disp rov ing se lf-de fen se . Was Mr
. Castane da egr egio us ly harme d by the trial co urt ’s failure to pro pe rly inst ruc t the jury on th e l aw o f s el f-de fen se ?
Relevant F ac ts Mr. C as t aneda wa s indicte d fo r the mu rder of Ba ron Keith Arms trong

. (2 C.R.

at 13 ). Pa tricia Asbe rry wa s the only witne ss ca lled by the State wh o wa s at the hou se wh en the mu rder oc curre d. (4 R.R. at 93 ). Asbe rry tes tified that t he dec ede nt, Arms trong , wa s ve ry ang

ry and poi nt ed a gun at he r he ad in an atte mp t to find his ke ys . (4 R.R. at 14 2, 14 5). She t es t i fi ed that af ter Arms trong poin ted the gun at he r he ad, Arms trong wa lke d ov er to Mr. Casta ne da and tol d hi m that he wa nte d his ke ys . (4 R .R

. at 14 6). Asbe rry said that the gun wa s be hind Arms trong ’s bac k (4 R.R. at 14 6); Mr. Cast an ed a sa i d that Arms trong poin ted the gun at his fa ce and an inch fro m his che st. (6 R.R. at 41 , 43 -4 4). He said that Arms trong l at er sh ot t he gun wh ile he wa s

on the groun d af

ter be ing beat en by Mr. Casta ne da. (6 R.R. at 62 ). In res pon se , Mr.
Casta ne da gr ab be d a pipe and hit Arms trong app roxim ate ly fiv e time s. (6 R.R. at 62

- 63 ). Arm stro ng d

ied a s a res ult of the be ating.
Th e jury ch arge include d an

instruc tion o n s elf

-de fe ns e (2 C.R. at 6 9- 71 ).
S tandar d of Review Article 3 6. 14 of

the Te xas Code of

Crimina l Proc edu re s tate s in part: [I] n ea ch fe lony ca se ... tried in a co urt of r ec or d, t he judge sh all, be fo re the arg u ment be gins, delive r to the jury...a writte n ch arge distinc tly se tting fo rth the law app licable to th e c ase .

26In ana lyzing a jury ch arge issue , an ap pe l l at e co urt’s first duty is to dec ide

wh eth er error ex ists

. Ba rrios v. State , 28 3 S.W. 3d 34 8, 35 0 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 09 ). If

error exi st s, the co urt the n ana lyzes that error fo r harm

. Id

. If the app ellant did not obje ct to the ch ar ge , t he app ea l co urts ex am ine the rec ord fo r egre gious harm

. Id

. Errors that res ult in egre gious harm are tho se that af fe ct “the ve ry bas is of the ca se ,” “de prive the def

en dan t of a va luable right,” or “vitally af fe ct a def en siv e the ory .” Ngo
v. S tate, 17 5 S. W.3 d 7 38 , 7 50 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 05 ). Th e Trial

Court Committed Err

or b y Submitting a F

aulty J ury Instruc tion A “trial judge mu st ‘dis tinctly se t[ ] fo rth the law app licable to the ca se’ i n t he jury ch arge .” Reeves v. State, 42 0 S.W. 3d 81 2, 81 8 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 13) ( ci ting T E X

. C O D E C RI M

. P RO C

. A RT

. 36 .1 4). “‘I t is not the fun ction of the ch arge me rely to av oid
mis leadin g or co nfusing the jury; it is the fun ction of the ch arge to lead and to pre ve nt

co nf usion .’ ” Id

. (quoting Williams v. Stat

e , 5 47 S.W. 2d 18 , 2 0 (T ex . Crim . Ap p. 19 77 )).
Th e Court of Criminal Appe als has he ld that i f a trial co urt signa ls that se lfdef en se is the law ap pl i ca ble to the ca se , the n “an y flaw in the ch arge on se lf-d ef en se

am oun ts to an erro r i n the ch arge .” Ba rrera v. State , 98 2 S.W. 2d 41 5, 41 6 (Te x. Crim. App. 19 98 ). In Ba rrera , “th e fa i l u r e t o app ly the law of se lf-d ef en se to the fa cts of the

ca se and to instruc t the j u r y to ac quit if the y he ld a reas ona ble doub t on se lf-d ef en se

wa s e rror.” Id

. “While gen er al l y, ‘in the abs en ce of ev iden ce to the co ntrary , we will ass um e that the jury fo llowe d its writte n instruc tions ,’ this pre sup pos es that the instruc tions

are unde rstan dab le.” Reeves , 42 0 S.W. 3d 81 8 ( q u ot i ng M iles v. State , 20 4 S.W. 3d 82 2,
82 7- 28 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 06 )). 27In the Reeves ca se , Judge Coc hran criticized a se lf-d ef en se prov ocat ion jury
instruc tion fro m Harris Coun ty. She not ed that the “firs t app lication para graph

co ntains 15 6 wo rds in one se nt en ce . Th e se co nd para graph co ntains 12 5 wo rds in one

se nte nc e. N eithe r is c om pre he ns ible. ” Reeves at 8 18

. Th e a pplica tion p aragra ph of the jury ins truction

in this ca se sta ted : Th ere fo re, if yo u find fro m the ev iden ce be yo nd a r eason able doub t that the def

en dan t, John atha n Rena rd Casta ne da, did ca use the dea th of Ba ron Keith Arms trong with his han d or with an unk now n obje ct, as allege d, but yo u furth er find fro m the ev iden ce , as vi ewe d fro m the sta ndp oint of the def en dan t at the time , fro m the wo rds or co nduc t, or bot h of Ba ron Keith Arms trong it r eason ably app ea red to the def en dan t t hat his life or pe rso n wa s in dan ger and the re wa s cre ate d in his min d a r ea so na ble ex pe cta tion or fe ar of dea th or se rious bod ily injury from the use of unlaw ful dea dly fo rce at the han ds of Ba ron Keith Arms trong , and that ac ting unde r suc h app reh en sion

... he st ruck Ba ron Keith Arms trong with his ha nd or an unk now n obje ct, the n yo u sh ould
ac quit the def

en dan t on the gr ou nds of se lf-d ef en se ; or if yo u hav e a reas ona ble doub t as to wh eth er or not the def en dan t wa s ac ting in se lfdef en se on said oc ca sion and unde r the circu ms tanc es, t he n yo u sh ould give the def

en dan t the be ne fit of the doub t and say by yo u r ver di ct, not guilty. If yo u find fr om t he ev iden ce be yo nd a reas ona ble doub t that at the time and plac e in ques tion the def en dan t did not reas ona bly be lieve that he wa s in da ng er of dea th or se rious bod ily injury, or that the def en dan t

... did not reas ona bly be lieve that the deg ree of fo rce ac tually use d by him wa s imm ediate ly ne ce ss ary t o pr otect him se lf again st Ba ron Keith Arms trong ’s u se or atte mp ted use of unlaw ful dea dly fo rce , the n yo u sh ould f

ind ag ains t the de fe nda nt o n th e is sue of se lf-d ef en se . (2 C. R. at 70 -7 2) Adm ittedly the se lf-d ef

en se instruc tion in this ca se doe s not ri se t o the lev el of
the “six -p age fo res t of legal ‘arg le- ba r gl e, ’” in Reeves

. Id

. at 81 7. Ho we ve r, it doe s rival
Reeves in one res pe ct: the leng th of the app lication para graph. Th e Court not ed that
the app lication para graphs i n Reeves include d a 15 6- and 12 5- wo rd run- on se nte nc e. Th e a pplica tion p aragra ph in this ca se is a single 21 9- wo rd se nte nc e. 28Also like Reeves , the app lication para graph in this ca se did not cle arly sta te the

law. Im porta ntly, the ch arge is mis sing any me ntion of wh o ca rries the burden of
prov ing that Mr. Casta ne da di d or did not ac t in se lf-d ef en se . Whe n se lf-d ef

en se is at issue , the “de fe nda nt has the initial burde n of prod ucing so me ev iden ce to justify sub mission of a se lf-d ef en se instruc tion. Th e State mu st the n pe rsuad e the jury be yo nd a reas ona ble doub t that the def en dan t did not ac t in se lf-d efe ns e. ” Tidmore v. State , 9 76 S.W. 2d 72 4, 72 9 (T ex . Ap p. —T yle r 19 98 , p et. ref ’d).
Th e se lf-d ef

en se instruc tion in this ca se did be gin the app licati on para graph with, “T he ref

ore , if yo u find fro m the ev iden ce be yo nd a reas ona ble doub t,” bu t t he jury could hav e unde rsto od the instruc tion to mea n that Mr. Casta ne da r at he r than the
State bore the burde n o f p rov ing s elf -de fe ns e b ey ond

a re aso nab le do ubt.
Th e Texas Crimi

nal Pattern Jury Char

ge on “D efe ns es ” provide s a mo re cle arly
articulate d bu rden of

pro of fo r se lf-d ef

en se . I t sta tes : Burde n of Pro of
The def en dan t is not required to prov e se lf-d ef en se . Rathe r, the sta te mu st prov e, be yo nd a reas ona ble doub t, that se lf-d ef en se doe s n ot a pply

to th e d ef

en dan t’s co nduc t. Texas Criminal Pat

ter J ury Char ges— Defenses (20 13 ), §B 14 .4 , a t 20 6§§.
If suc h an instruc tion wa s give n to the jury in this ca se , it wo uld hav e be en cle ar that
the State — not Mr. Casta ne da — bore the burde n of pr oo f, and wh at ex ac tly wa s to be pro ve n. Tw o oth er prov

isi on s of t he ch arge co uld hav e also ca use d co nf usion fo r the jury. Th e ch arge def

ined the va rious ele me nt s of mu rder and app lied the fa cts to the

ca se on the pag e prior t o disc uss ing the ele me nts and app lication of se lf-d ef en se (2 29C .R

. at 67 -6 8). In the app lication para graph on mu rder alone , the ch arge said, “I f yo u

find fro m the ev

iden ce be yo nd a reas ona ble doub t that

... C as t an ed a ... did ca use the dea th of Ba r on Ke ith A rms trong ... then yo u will find the def en dan t guilty of murde r,

as ch arge d in the indictm en t” (2 C.R. at 68 ). In this initial app lication para graph , prov ided be fo re the se lf-d ef

en se ch arge , the re wa s no me ntion that se lf-d ef en se wa s

an issue

. A pr efe rable ch arge wo uld hav e indica ted that the jury ne eds to app ly the law of se l f- def

en se to the mu rder ch arge , as in: “If yo u find fro m the ev iden ce be yo nd a

reas ona ble doub t that

... Casta ne da

... did ca use the dea th of Ba ron Keith Arms trong

... t he n yo u wi l l find the def en dan t guilty of mu rder, as ch arge d in the indictm en t, if you do not find beyond a rea sonabl e doubt tha t M r. Ca staneda ac ted in self -def ense .”
A fina l prov

ision of the charge that ma y hav e ca use d co nf usion wa s the se ction

on non -p rov oc ation and no duty to retre at. Th e prov ision say s that a “pe rso n wh o has

a right to be pre se nt at the loca tion wh ere the dea dly fo rce is use d

... and wh o is no t

en gage d in crim inal ac tivit y at t he time the dea dly fo rce is use d is not required to

retre at be fo re using de ad l y fo rce .” Mr. Casta ne da tes tified to pos se ss ing crac k co ca ine

at the time he en gage d in se lf-d ef en se , and as a r es u l t t he jury co uld hav e unde rsto od
the ch arge to me an that Mr. Casta ne da had a duty to ret r ea t be ca u se of that crim inal

ac tivity wh ich had not hing to do wit h t he al t ercation

. Ho we ve r, that se ction did en d by not ing, “Yo u are not to co ns ider wh et he r t he def en dan t fa iled to retre at.” But the

co nf lict be twe en the prov

isions of the ch arge and the facts of the ca se co uld hav e lef t the jury c onf

use d.
In co nc lusion, t he trial co urt co mm itted error sinc e the jury instruc tion wa s

co nf using in v arious res pe cts an d did n ot c learly sta te th e law

. 30Ha rm Anal

ysis: Th e Erro rs in the J

ury Char ge A mounted to Eg

regious H arm Tr i al co u ns el did not obje ct to the ch arge in this ca se . As a res ult, this C ou r t

mu st rev iew the error unde r the “eg regiou s harm ” sta nda rd of Al manza . Al manza v. State , 686 S .W .2 d 15 7 (Te x. Crim. App. 19 85 ). Egre gious harm co ns ists of tho se

errors that af

fe ct the ve ry bas is of the ca se , dep rive the def en dan t of a va

lu ab l e r i ght, vitally af fe ct a def

en siv e the or y, or make the ca se fo r pun ishm en t cle arly and signif ican tly mo re pe rsua si ve. L ee v. State, 29 S.W. 3d 57 0, 57 8 (Te x. App. – Da llas
20 00 , no pe t.); M

atth ews v. State , 99 9 S.W.2d 563 , 56 5 (Te x. App. – Ho usto n, [1 4 th
Dis t.] 19 99 , p et. ref

’d).
To det erm ine wh eth er the rec ord es tablish es that the app ellant suf fe red egre gious harm , a rev

iew ing co urt mu st co ns ider 1) the co mpl et e jury ch arge , 2) the argum en ts of co uns el, 3) the en ti r ety of the ev iden ce , including the co nte ste d issue s and we ight of the prob ative ev iden ce , an d 4) any oth er relev ant fa cto rs rev ea led by t he rec ord as a wh ole. Ne ither party be ars a burde n of prod uction or per sua sion with res pe ct to an Al manza harm ana lysis , the ques tion be ing sim ply wh at the rec ord dem ons trates

. Ho ll ander v. State , 41 4 S.W. 3d 74 6 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 13 ) ( ci t at i ons om itted).
Ho we ve r, the Fo urtee nth Court of Appe als has det erm ined this ex ac t instruc tion is suf fic ient - but not ne ce ss ar i l y cle ar. See Gild er v. State , 14 -1 3- 01 08 8- CR, 20 14 WL
72 04 96 2, at *4 (

Tex

. App. —H ous ton [1 4th Dis t.] De c. 18 , 20 14 , no. pe t. h. )(ex plaining “[w

]h ile the instruc tion in this ca se is suf fic ient, the Te xas Pa ttern Jury Charge co ntains a mo re cl ea r ch ar ge on se lf-d ef en se . See Comm. on Pattern Jury Char ges , State Ba r of

Te x. , T ex as Criminal P atte rn Jury Charg es : D ef

en se s § B 14 .4 (20 13 )”).

31A. The Jury Ch arg e It self
Th e ch arge in this ca se co ns isted of fiv e parts: 1) the abs tract that include d the

sta tutory def

initions and ele me nts of t he of fens e; 2) the se lf-d ef

en se instruc tion; 3) the
app lication para graph ; 4) an instruc tion on the use of prior of fe ns e ev iden ce ; and 5)
gen eral ins truction s. Th e c harge wa s c onf using an d f ailed to pro pe rly st ate the law.
A s pr evious ly men tione d, the re we re various prov isions in the charge that co u l d hav e co nf use d the jury. Th e initial app lication para graph on mu rder fa iled to me ntion
that the jury sh ould co ns ider se lf-d ef en se . Th ere wa s also a co nf using duty t o r et r ea t prov ision.
No wh ere in the app lication para graph of the se lf-d ef en se ch arge wa s it sta ted
that the stat e had the burde n of prov ing be yo nd a reas ona ble doub t that the def en dan t did not ac t in se lf-d ef en se , but rathe r sim ply said, “i f you hav e a reas ona ble doub t.... ” Th e gen eral instruc tions sta ted : “T he prose cution has the burde n of
prov ing the def

en dan t guilty and it mu st do so by prov ing ea ch and ev ery ele ment of
the of fe ns e ch arge d be yo nd a reas ona ble doub t and if it fa ils to do so , yo u mu st ac quit
the def en dan t.” Self-de fen se i s not an ele me nt of the of fe ns e. No ref

ere nc e to the
pros ec ution’ s burden rega rding se lf-d ef en se is me ntion ed. Whe the r the sta te or def en dan t has the burden of pr ov i ng if the def

en dan t did or did not act i n self -de fe ns e is critically imp ortant and co uld ma ke all the diff ere nc e in term s of wh eth er or not the def en dan t is ac quitted.
B. Ar guments of Counsel
Ne ither the State no r de fen se co uns el me ntion ed wh os e burde n it wa s to prov e

or disp rov e se lf-d ef

en se du r i ng ope ning sta tem en ts. (3 R.R. at 15 -2 4). Th e State did

32not me ntion that Mr. Casta ne da wa s goi ng t o claim se lf-d ef en se , but def

en se co uns el did. Coun se l not ed that, “to def en d himse l f my clien t and the ma n got into a figh t wh en the ma n wa s trying to ki l l hi m with the gun. ” (3 R.R. at 22 ). De fe ns e co uns el

we nt on t o no t e that the oth er me mb ers of the hou se jump ed on Mr. Casta ne da and
“he wa s hav

ing a figh t with the landlord slas h pim p slas h dop e dea ler. And the n ultimate ly t he ma n was killed. ” (3 R.R. at 22 -2 3). De fe ns e co uns el co nc luded ope ning

rem ark s by st at i ng , “The re wa s a figh t. And if it had not be en fo r my clien t’s ability to figh t with Mr. Arms trong , he wo u l d be dea d now and he wo uld hav e be en gunn ed dow n in that res iden ce on Van Fle et Stree t. And it ’s that pure and sim ple. ” (3 R.R. at 24 ).
Du ring clos ing argum en ts, t he State did not me ntion that it ca rried the burde n to disprov e self

-de fe ns e, tho ugh the State did argue as to why t hi s ca se di d not i nv olve

se l f- def en se . Much of the State’ s argum en ts fo cus ed on se lf-d ef en se requiri ng “rea so nab le” fo rce and that it be “imm ediate ly ne ce ss ary. ” (6 R.R. at 15 5- 15 6). Th e State claim ed that the fo rce use d by Mr. Casta ne da wa s “no t to a r ea so na bl e deg ree
. It’s ex ce ss ive , ov erk

ill

. It’s mu rder. ” (6 R.R

. at 158 )

. He later said that the fo rce mu st be “imm ediate ly ne ce ss ary” and has “got to be a rea so na bl e be lief of an ordina ry pe rso n in th at p os ition.” (6 R.R. a t 17 8).
Un fo rtunate ly tha t i s not an ac cura te des cription of the law. Th e se lf-d ef en se

sta tutes say not hing abo ut “an ordina ry pe rso n in t ha t position. ” Th e dea dly fo rce

sta tute say s that a pe rso n is justifie d in using dea dly fo rce again st ano the r “w he n and

to the deg ree the ac tor reas ona bly be lieve s the dea dly fo rce is imm ediate ly ne ce ss ary: to

33prote ct t he ac tor again st the oth er’ s use of atte mp ted use of unlaw ful dea dly fo rce .”

T E X

. P E N

. C O D E §9. 32 (a)(2 ) (em pha sis adde d). While the pros ec utor mis sta ted the law in its clos ing, the ch arge di d ac curately

stat e t ha t the situation sh ould be “vie we d fro m the standpo int of the defe ndant at the
time ” and the jury sh ould co ns ider if i t “rea so nab ly app ea red to the def en dan t that his life or pe r so n was in dan ger and the re wa s cre ate d in his mind a reas ona ble ex pe cta tion

or fe ar of dea th or se rious bo di ly injury... .” (2 C.R. at 71 ). Th e ef fe ct of the
pros ec ut or ’s mis sta tem en t of the law wa s to ef fe ctiv ely lowe r the sta nda rd of se lfdefe ns e by sub stituting an “ordin ary pe rso n” sta nda rd fo r the law, wh ich requires the jury to co ns ider the vie ws of t he ac tor – “ordin ary” or not

. Th is co uld ma ke it hard er fo r Mr. Ca sta ne da to pre va il on h is s elf

-de fe ns e c laim.
De fe ns e co u ns el did not sp ec ifica lly tell the jury that the State has the burde n of disp rov

ing se lf-d ef

en se , but he di d atte mp t to ex plain se lf-d ef en se . Coun se l sta ted
that a pe rso n “ca n use dea dly fo rce again st any one if it’s a r ea so na bl e res pon se to a dea dl y fo rce that is be ing lev ied again st yo u or the pe rce ption of dea dly fo rce .” (6 R.R.

at 16 8). Whe n def

en se co uns el atte mp ted to say that the j u r y sh ou ld co ns ider the
vie ws of Mr. Casta ne da “an d wh at is his pe rce ption of wh at’s going on,” t he co u rt

sus taine d the State’ s obje ction alleging def en se co uns el’s ch ar ac terization wa s a mis sta tem en t of law be ca use the jury sh ould only co ns ider “w hat an or di na r y pe rso n i n t he def

en dan t’s pos ition” wo uld co ns ider. (6 R.R. at 16 7). Onc e again , the sel fdef en se sta tute say s not hing abo ut co ns i de r i ng an “ordin ary pe rso n. ” Th e obje ction sh ould n ot h av e b ee n s usta ined

.

34C. Th e Entirety of the Evidence Asber r y and Mr. Casta ne da — the only two witne ss es wh o we re at the sc en e wh en t he mu rder oc curre d and wh o tes tified — agre ed that the co mp lainant wa s ang ry, he had a gun, and he poin ted it Asbe rry. Th ey agre e that Arms trong ’s ac t i ons

res ulted in Asbe rry c rying in f ea r. Th e two disag

ree d on the det ails of what ha pp en ed ne xt. Asbe rry said that Arms trong had the gun wh en he wa lke d ov er to Mr. Casta neda bu t di d not poin t it at him

. Mr. Casta ne da said that Arms trong poin ted the gun at his head an d ch es t. Asbe rry did not say any sh ots we re fired and that Mr. Casta ne da co ntinue d to hit Arms trong with a pipe af

ter he wa s not mo ving on the floo r. M r
. Casta ne da said that Arms trong sh ot at him , prov ok ing him to hit Arms trong so me more wh ile Arms trong

wa s o n th e g

round

. Th e fo ren sic ev

iden ce doc um en ted Arms trong ’s signif ican t phy sica l dam age to his fa ce , ne ck , and sk

ull. Th e me dical ex am iner tes tified that t he ca u se of dea th wa s blunt f orc e tra um a to the he ad a nd n ec k.
In co nc lusion, Mr. Casta ne da wa s egre gious ly harm ed by t he co nf using ch arge that fa iled to cle arly tell the jury that the State ca rried the burde n of prov ing that Mr.
Casta ne da d id no t ac t in s elf -de fe ns e.

35Iss ue Fo ur: Ev ery de fe nd a nt has a right to trial on le gally

su fficie nt ev

iden ce , wh ich su ppo rts a co nvic tion be yo nd a reas on able do ubt fo r eac h el em en t of the ch arg ed of fen se . Mr
. Castane da was co nvic te d of aggravate d se xual a ssault abse nt ev iden ce that a de adly we apon was us ed and ex hibite d during the ass ault , an es se ntial el em en t to the ch arged of fen se. D id the jury co nvic t M r. Cast aned a on th e b asis o f ins uffic ient ev iden ce ?
Th e Fo urteen t h Ame ndm en t guaran tee s the right to trial on legally suf fic ient

ev iden ce . Ja ck son v. Virg

ini a , 44 3 U. S. 30 7, 316 ( 19 79 ); Bro ok s v. State , 32 3 S.W. 3d 89 3,
91 6 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 10 ). Th ere fo re, this co urt mu st en sure that the evi de nc e pre se nte d ac tually sup ports the co nc lusion t ha t M r. Casta ne da co mm itted aggra va ted

se xua l ass ault. See Winfrey v. State , 32 3 S.W. 3d 87 5, 88 2 (Te x. Crim. A pp
. 201 0).
View ing all of the ev

iden ce in the light mo st fa vo rable to t he ver di ct, ev iden ce is insuf fic ient to sup port a co nv

iction if no rat i onal trier of fa ct co uld hav e fo und that

ea ch ele me nt of the ch arge d of fe ns e was pr ov en be yo nd a reas ona ble doub t. Bro ok s , 32 3 S. W.3 d at 9 17

. Sufficien cy of the ev

iden ce is me asu red by the ele me nts of the of fe ns e as def ined by the hy

pot he tically co rrec t jury ch arge fo r the ca se. Mal i k v . State , 95 3 S.W. 2d 23 4, 24 0 (

Te x. Crim. App. 19 97 ). A hy pot he tically co rrec t ch arge has its bas is
i n t he indictm en t allegatio ns
. Go ll ihar v. State , 46 S.W. 3d 24 3, 25 5 (Te x. Crim. A pp
. 20 01 ). It ac cura tely se ts out the l aw , is autho rized by the indictm en t, and doe s not

unn ec es sarily in cre ase the State 's burd en of pro of

. M alik , 9 53 S.W. 2d at 2 40

. The hypo thet

ical ly cor rect ch arg e required the State to prove M r. Castaneda used and exh ibited a dead ly weap on during th e assaul

t A hy pot he tically co rrec t ch arge fo r this ca se res ults fro m the statutory ele me nts of aggra va ted se xua l ass ault outline d in the Te xas Pe na l C od e, as mo dified by the
36indictm en t. See Curry v. State , 30 S.W. 3d 39 4, 40 4 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 00 ). A pe rso n

co mm its ag grav ate d s ex ual as sau lt if he : 1. inten tionally or knowi ngly ca use s the pe ne tration of the anus or se xua l
organ of an oth er p ers on by

an y m ea ns , 2. with out th at p ers on's co ns en t; a nd
3. use s o r ex hibits a de adly we apo n du ring the co mm ission of the as sau lt.
T E X

. P E N A L C O D E A N N

. § 22 .0 21 ( A ). T he indictm en t require s th e Stat e to pro ve : 1. M r
. C as t an ed a u nl aw fu l l y, i nte nti on al l y an d kn ow i ng l y ca u se d t he
pe ne tration of the anus of Ms. Asbe rry by plac ing his se xua l organ in the

anus of Ms. Asb erry , 2. witho ut the co ns en t of Ms. Asb erry ; a nd n am ely , 3. Mr. Casta ne da co mp elled Ms. Asbe rry t o su bmi t an d partic ipate by the

use of ph ys i ca l fo rce and viole nc e and in the co urse of the sam e crim inal
ep isod e, Mr. Casta neda use d and ex hibited a dea dly we apo n, nam ely a

me tal ba r (I C. R. at 12

).
Th ere fo re, the Stat e mu st prov e as an es se ntial ele me nt of the ch arge d of fe ns e that Mr. Casta ne da use d and exhi bi ted a dea dly we apo n during the ass ault. Th ere wa s insuf fic ient evi de nce to co nv

ict Mr. Casta ne da of aggra va ted se xua l ass ault be ca use the State fa

iled to prov e th is e lem en t. There was no p roof

M r. Ca staneda used and ex

hibited a dead ly weap on during th e assaul

t Ev en if the jury co u l d l i nk Mr. Casta ne da to an ass ault, he did not ‘us e or

ex hibit’ a dea dly we apo n during the co urse of the ass ault. Whe n the jury is the fa ct find er, the r e mu st be an ex pre ss find ing of a dea dly we apo n. LaF leur v. State , 10 6 37S.W. 3d 91 , 92 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 03 ). To sus tain a de ad l y weap on find ing, the

ev iden ce mu st dem ons trate that: (1) the ob j ec t me ets the sta tutory def inition of a dea dly we apo n, (2) the dea dly we apo n wa s use d or ex hibited during the crim e, and (3)
oth er pe ople we re put in ac tual dan ger. Drich as v. State , 17 5 S.W. 3d 79 5, 798 ( Tex.
Crim. A pp
. 2005). Th es e requirem en ts do not i nc reas e the State's burde n of proo f, but
ke ep s it ex ac tly the sam e. In co ntras t, if the State did not hav e t o su st ain a dea dly

wea po n find ing, the burde n of proo f wo uld dec reas e. See Curry , 30 S.W. 3d at 405 (no ting that dele ting the phra se “by using and thre ate ning to use dea dly for ce name ly,

a firea rm” fro m the hy

pot he tica l j u r y ch arge wo uld imp rope rly dec reas e the State's burde n o f p roof

). While the me tal bar co ul d mee t t he sta tutory def inition of a dea dly we apo n, it

wa s not “use d or ex hibited ” du r i ng t he crim e, and did not put Ms. Asbe rry in ac tual dan ger. To “e xh i bi t ” a we apo n, the def en dan t mu st co ns cious ly sh ow or disp lay the 3

we apo n during the co mm ission of the crim e. Patte rs on v . St ate , 76 9 S.W. 2d 93 8, 94 1 ( Tex

. Crim. App. 19 89 ). Mere pos se ss ion doe s not am oun t to use or ex hibition.
Plummer v. State , 41 0 S.W. 3d 85 5, 86 4 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 13 ); M cCain v. State , 22 S.W. 3d 49 7, 50 3 (T ex . Crim . Ap p. 20 00 ).
Th e obje ct’ s inten ded use unde r the sp ec ific circu ms tanc es he lp s de term ine wh eth er it is a dea dly weap on. Th e det erm ining fa cto r is wh eth er the we apo n wa s

3 Th ere wa s an ex pre ss find ing that the me tal bar wa s a dea dly we apo n wh en it wa s include d in the indictm en t. Ho we ve r, including the dea dly we apo n langua ge in the indictm en t doe s not amo unt to “u se of ex hi bi tion” of the we apo n to he lp facilitate the ch arge d of

fe ns e. Th ere is an ex tra ste p he re that mu st be prov ed, and ca nno t be ass um ed. See Crumpton v. State , 30 1 S.W. 3d 66 3, 66 9 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 09 ) (Mey ers , J. diss en ting) (no ting to sim ply co nne ct the indictm en t, listing a dea dly we apo n, to the ve rdict, and sk ip ov er th e inte rme diate ma terial tha t the jury c ons idere d, yie lds a n inc om plete an alys is). 38use d in fa cilitating the unde rlying crim e. M cCain , 22 S.W. 3d at 50 3. Th ere mu st be

so me co nne ction be twe en t he co ns cious ex hibition of the we apo n, and the

co mm ission of the of

fe ns e. Plummer v. State , 410 S .W. 3d 85 5, 86 4 (Te x. Crim. App.
20 13 ). Th e de fe nda nt mu st use the we apo n to instill app reh en sion in the vic tim. M cCain , 22 S.W. 3d at 50 3. Th ere fo re, the jury mu st look be yo nd t he me re fa ct that a

me tal ba r ex isted ; th e jury

m ust c ons ider a ll of th e e vide nc e s urround ing th e s ituation.
Fo r ex am ple, the vi ct i m i n M cCain v. State saw a kn ife stick ing out of the def en dan t's bac k poc ke t during a robb ery
. Id

. Th e vic tim be lieve d the obje ct wa s a kn ife , and that de fen da nt wo uld cut he r with it. Id

. at 49 9. Th e co urt co nc luded that a juror co uld rational l y co nc lude that the kn ife wa s ex hibited during the crim inal

trans ac tion to instill a se ns e of app reh en sion in the vic tim, reduc ing the likelihoo d of

res istan ce during th e e nc oun ter. Id . a t 50 3.
Un like the def

en dan t in McCa

in, wh o ke pt the kn ife i n hi s ba ck poc ke t during
the robb ery , Mr. Casta ne da put the me tal bar do wn on a table during the ch arge d

ass ault. (4 R.R. at 17 0). Mr. Casta ne da did not ke ep t he met al ba r i n his han d, nor on his pe rso n wh en Ms. A sb er r y said he ass aulted he r my fo rcing he r to en gage in ana l

se x. (4 R.R. at 17 0). Mr. Casta ne da ne ve r co ns cious ly disp laye d the me tal bar during
the ass ault. Mr. Casta ne da ne ve r thre ate ne d Ms. Asbe rry wit h the me tal bar during the
ch arge d se xua l ass ault. M r
. Casta ne da ne ve r hit Ms. Asbe rry with the me tal bar,
althou gh the co mp lainant sta ted t he me tal bar wa s within his reac h during the ass ault. (4 R.R. at 17 6). Furth er, unlike the vi ct i m i n McCa in, wh o be lieve d the def

en dan t

wo uld cut he r with the kn ife , the re wa s no ev iden ce prese nt ed t hat Ms. Asbe rry fe ared
Mr. Ca sta ne da w ould h it her with the m eta l bar. 39At mo st, the ev iden ce he re sh ow s: (1) Mr. Casta ne da pr evious ly had co ns en sua l

se x with Ms. Asbe rry; (2) Mr. Casta ne da di d hav e a me tal bar on a table during the

ass ault; (3) Ms. Asbe rry did not fe el thre ate ne d by the metal bar itself

. Th ere fo re, ev en if the jury be lieve d Ms. Asbe rry's tes timo ny that an ass ault oc curre d, a r at ional juror

co uld not find that Mr. Casta ne da co mp elled Ms. Asbe rry to partic ipate in the ep isod e by u si ng and ex hibiting a me tal pole that put Ms. Asbe rry in ac tual dan ger. Th e

ev iden ce, ev en wh en vie we d in the light mo st fa vo rable to the ve rdict, is legally insuf fic ient to sup port a co nv

i ction of aggra

va ted se xua l ass ault be yo nd a reas ona ble doub t.

40Iss ue Fiv e: The trial co urt mu st ho ld an ev iden tiary he aring on a mo tio n fo r ne w trial if the mo tio n and affidavits raise matt ers no t de te rminabl e fro m the rec ord , and th e acc us ed co uld be en titl ed to r el i ef

. The trial co urt failed to ho ld a he aring on the mo tio n, wh ich incl ude d affidavits fro m available mitigati on witn es se s wh o de fen se co uns el did no t call to te st ify. Did the co urt impro pe rly de ny M r. Cast aned a a hearing on his mo tio n fo r ne w t rial?
Mr. Casta ne da wa s en titled to a he aring on the Motion fo r Ne w Trial be ca use his mo tion wa s sup porte d by num ero us af fida vits fro m mitigation witne ss es wh o we re

no t ca lled to tes tify at the pun ishm en t pha se of the trial. Th e Motion fo r New Tr i al
claim s that def

en se co uns el wa s i neff

ec tive fo r fa

ili ng to ca ll the se mitigation
witnes se s. Inn um erab le ca se s hav e det erm ined that def en se co uns el's fa

ilure t o ca l l
witne ss es to prov

ide mitig at ion tes timo ny am oun ts to inef fe ctiv e ass istan ce of

co uns el.
“A def en dan t is en titled to an ev iden t i ar y he aring on his mo tion fo r ne w trial if
the mo tion and ac co mp any ing af fida vit(s ) raise ma tters not det erm inable fro m t he

r ec or d, upo n wh ich the ac cus ed co uld be en titled to relief .” Lucero v. State , 24 6 S.W. 3d
86 , 94 (Te x. Crim. A pp
. 200 8) ( citing Wal lac e v. State , 10 6 S.W. 3d 10 3, 10 8 (Te x. Crim. App. 2003) ). Aff

idav its mu st sp ec ifica lly se t out the fa ctua l bas is of the claim , but the y “ne ed not es tablish a prima fa cie ca se .” Smith v. State , 28 6 S.W. 3d 33 3, 33 9 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 09 ). Affidav

its ne ed only give rise to “rea so nab le groun ds in sup port of the
cl ai m. ” Id

. “T he purpo se of the he aring is to give the def en dan t an opp ortun

ity t o fully dev elop the ma tters raise d in the mo tion. ” Wal lac e , 10 6 S.W. 3d at 108 ( citing M artinez v. State , 74 S.W. 3d 19 , 22 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 02 ). Appe llate co urts r eview a trial co urt's dec ision rega rding grant ing a he aring on a mo tion fo r ne w t r ial unde r an

41abus e of disc retion sta nda rd. Lucero , 24 6 S.W. 3d at 94 ( citing M artinez , 74 S .W.3d at 22 ).
A def en dan t alleging inef

fe ctiv e ass istan ce of co uns el in a mo tion fo r ne w t r ial will be en titled to a hearing if he alleges “suf fi ci en t fa cts fro m wh ich a tr ial co urt co uld

reas ona bly co nc lude bot h that co uns el fa iled to ac t as a reas onably co mp ete nt attorn ey and that, but fo r co uns el's fa ilure, the re i s a r ea so nable likelihoo d that the outc om e of his trial w ould h av e b ee n dif fe ren t.” Smith, 28 6 S. W.3 d at 3 40

. In M artinez , the def en dan t wa s co nv

icte d of pos se ss ing fiv e to fif ty pou nds of

ma rijuana and se nte nc ed by a jury to eigh t ye ars i n pr i son. M artinez , 74 S.W. 3d at 20

. Martine z filed a “Motio n fo r Ne w Trial and He aring Th ere on,” alleging inef fe ctiv e

ass i stanc e of co uns el be ca use his trial co uns el did not time ly info rm him that the sta te had ma de a plea barga

in of fer r ec ommen ding fo ur ye ars inca rce ration. Id

. Th e mo tion include d an af

fi davit fro m Martine z alleging that he wa s info rme d of the plea of fe r “t he day be fo re he was se t to go to trial, and that the off er was incre ase d to eig ht ye ar s the ne xt mo rning. ” Id

. Th e af fida vit also sta ted that if he had kn ow n abo ut jury

ve rdicts in that co u nt y, and he had suf fic ient time to disc uss ion the “pro s and co ns ” of going to trial, he wo u l d ha ve be en able to mo re ef fe ctiv ely co ns ider the plea of fe r and wo uld ha

ve ac ce pte d it. Id

. Th e Court of Appea l s he l d that “the af fida vit wa s def

icien t and his mo tion wa s insuf fic ient to put the trial co urt on not ice that reas ona ble groun ds ex isted to be lieve
that co uns el's rep res en tation ma y hav e be en inef fe ctiv e. ” Id

. at 21

. Th e co u r t not ed
thre e reas ons wh y the af

fida vit wa s insuf

fic ient: 1) it sta ted that the def en dan t agre ed
wi th “trial co uns el's dec ision not to ac ce pt or rejec t the plea of fe r, and to wa

it to se e 42wh at wo uld hap pe n the ne xt mo rning, ” the day of tr i al ; 2) it “fa iled to sta te

uncon di t i on al ly” that he wo uld hav e ac ce pte d the plea of fe r if he kn ew abo ut it in a time ly ma nne r; and 3) the af fida vit “fa iled to estab lish wh en the plea of fe r wa s ma de by the sta te relative to wh en i t wa s comm unica ted to appe llant and whe n the off er was withd raw n. ” Id

. Th e C ou r t of Criminal Appe als con clude d that “the court of app ea ls erred in i t s

ana lysis of the suf

fic ienc y of app ellant's af

fida vit supp orting his new t r i al moti on, ” and

rev ers ed and rem and ed t he ca se with instruc tions to aba te the app ea l and rem and it to the trial co urt to co nduc t a he aring on the mo tion fo r ne w trial. Id

. at 22

. Th e co urt

not ed that “de fe ns e co uns el's fa ilure to info rm the def

en da nt of a pl ea of

fe r ca n

co nst i t u t e inef

fe ctiv e ass istan ce of co uns el and wa rrant reins tate me nt of the plea of fe r.” Id

. (c iti n g E x pa rt e Lemke , 13 S.W. 3d 79 1 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 00 )). Th at wa s the
claim on wh

ich the Motion fo r Ne w Trial wa s bas ed and wh ich the af fida vit
sup porte d. As suc h, the “pa rticulars of pre cise ly wh en the pl ea of fe r wa s co nv ey ed to def en se co uns el and the am oun t of time it rem aine d av ailable fo r ac ce ptan ce are

am ong fa ctua l ma tters tha t sh ould b e f ully de ve lope d at a

he aring. ” Id

. Th e trial rec ord and af

fida vits that ac co mp anie d the Motion fo r Ne w Tri al i n this ca se ma ke an eq u al l y stro ng or stro nge r ca se than M artinez fo r a claim of
inef fe ctiv e ass istan ce of co uns el. As suc h, the trial co urt sh oul d ha ve grant ed an

ev iden tiary h ea ring on the m otion

. Th e Motion fo r Ne w Tria l wa s bas ed on an inef fe ctiv e ass istan ce of co uns el
claim fo r fa

ilure to pre se nt punishm en t ev iden ce (2 C.R. at 10 2). Th e rec ord sh ow s that trial co uns el did not ca ll any mitigation witne ss es at the pun ishm en t pha se of the 43trial, bu t doe s not ev iden ce any ac kn ow

ledgm en t of av ailable mitigation witne ss es . (7
R.R. at 7). De fe ns e co uns el sim ply said, “D ef en se rest s an d cl oses , Judge .” (7 R.R. at 7). Multiple witne ss es we re av ailable to tes tify abo ut mitigating circu ms tanc es rega rding Mr. Casta ne da, as ev iden ce d by the af

fida vits that ac co mp anie d t he mo tion fo r ne w trial. Aff

idav its we re prov

ided by Mr. Casta ne da's mo ther ( 2 C.R. at 12 0); his grand mo the r ( 2 C.R. at 12 7); two co usins (2 C.R. at 11 8, 13 1); ano the r relative (2 C.R.

at 12 3); and a frien d of 16 ye ar s. ( 2 C.R. at 13 4). All co uld hav e tes tified to Mr.
Casta ne da’ s long- term me ntal ill ne ss , brain i njuries ca use d by a ca r ac cide nt, and
pos itive ch arac ter traits. No ne of this ev iden ce wa s pre se nte d to the co urt during the
pun ishm en t ph ase or du ring an ev iden tiary h ea ring on the Motion fo r N ew Trial.
Nu me rous co urts hav e he ld that fa ilure t o inve stigate and pre se nt mitigation
witne ss es during the pun ishme nt pha se am oun ts to inef fe ctiv e ass istan ce of co uns el.
Th e Fo urtee nth Court of Appe als he ld that def en se co uns el wa s inef

fe ctiv e fo r fa

ili ng

to pre se nt any mitigating ev iden ce at the pun ish men t pha se wh ere the def en dan t wa s

co nv icted of a first- deg

ree fe lony of pos se ss ion with inten t to delive r at leas t 40 0
gram s of co ca

ine. M ilburn v. State , 15 S.W. 3d 26 7 (Te x. App. -H ous ton [1 4th Dis t.]
20 00 , pe t. ref

'd). Tw o ye ars prior to the M ilburn dec ision, t he sa me co urt he ld that trial

co uns el wa s inef

fe ctiv e fo r fa

ili ng to inve stigate any mitigation ev iden ce for t he
pun ishm en t pha se wh ere the def en dan t rec eiv ed a 99 -y ea r se nte nc e fo r delive ry of less
than 28 gram s of co ca

ine with a pr i or fel on y conv iction. M oore v. State , 98 3 S.W. 2d 15 (Te x. App. -H ous ton [1 4th Dis t.] 19 98 , no pe t.). Th e co urt cite d vo lumino us fe dera l

ca se law in agre em en t. Id

. a t 23 -2 4.

44As pre vious ly not ed, a def en dan t alleging inef

fe ctiv e ass istan ce of co uns el in a

mo tion fo r ne w trial will be en title d to a he aring if he allege s “suf fic ient fa cts fro m wh ich a trial co urt co uld r eason ably co nc lude bot h that co uns el fa iled to ac t as a

reas ona bly co mp ete nt attorn ey and that, but fo r co uns el's fa ilure, the re is a reas ona ble
likelihoo d that the outc om e of his trial wo uld hav e be en diff erent .” Sm i

t h , 28 6 S.W. 3d
at 3 40 (em pha sis in original).
Th e fa ilure of def

en se co unsel t o i nv es tigate and pre se nt av ailable mitigation
witne ss es me ans that co uns el fa iled to ac t as a reas ona bl y co mp ete nt attorn ey . While
Mr. Casta ne da did rec eiv e a ma nda tory life se nte nce fo r on e of his co nv ictions in this

ca se (7 R.R. at 7- 8; 1 C.R

. at 73) , hi s mu rder co nv iction res ulted in a 45 -y ea r priso n

se nte nc e, wh ich co uld hav e be en reduc ed if hi s fa mily and frien ds we re pre se nte d at pun ishm en t to test i fy abo ut his histo ry of me ntal ill ne ss , brain injuries, and his goo d
ch arac ter tra

its.
Since the time ly Mot i on fo r Ne w Trial wa s sup porte d by num ero us af fida vits fro m mitigation witne ss es wh o we re not ca l l ed to tes tify at the pun ishm en t pha se , the
trial co urt sh ould hav e grant ed an ev iden tiary he aring on the mo tion to de t erm ine if
trial coun se l was inef

fe ctiv e a nd a

ne w p unish me nt h ea ring s hou ld be gran ted

.

45Iss ue Six: The DNA co urt co st ass es se d aga i ns t appe llant is an

unc on st itut ional

tax o n M r. Cast aned a. Preservation of

Erro r C ha l leng es to co urt co sts ca n be raise d fo r the first time on app ea l an d “[c ]o nv icte d def en dan ts hav e co ns tructiv e not ice of ma nda tory co urt co sts se t by

sta tute and the opp ortun ity to obje ct to the ass es sm en t of co urt co st s against the m fo r the first time on app ea l or in a proc ee ding unde r Article 10 3. 00 8 of t he Tex as Code of
Criminal Pro ce dure. ” Cardenas v. State , 42 3 S.W. 3d 39 6, 399 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 14 ).
In a co mp anion ca se dec ided the sam e day , the Court furth er ex plaine d that beca u se the co st bill is mo st l ike ly unav ailable at the time of the judgm en t, an “[a ]p pe llant ne ed

not hav e obje cte d at trial to raise a claim ch alleng ing the bas es of ass es se d co sts on app ea l.” Jo hnson v. Stat

e , 4 23 S.W. 3d 38 5, 39 1 (T ex . Crim . Ap p. 20 14 ). Ap plic abl e Law Th e bil l of co st s fo r the se xua l ass ault co nv iction ref lec t a $25 0 DN A fe e. (1
C.R. at 75 ). T E X

. C O D E C RI M

. P R O C

. A RT

. 10 2. 02 0( A )(1) prov ides that “[a

] pe rso n sh all pay as a co st of co urt $25 0 on co nv iction of an of

fe ns e listed in Sec tio n 41 1. 14 71 (a)(1 ), Go ve rnm en t Code .” A gg r av ate d se xua l ass ault is listed in Sec tion
41 1. 1471( a) (1)(D ), Go ve rnm en t Code

. Th us the $25 0 co st wa s prop erly include d in
the bills of

co st. Ho we ve r in Peraz

a v. State , this Court he ld the DNA Rec ord Fe e wa s not a legitima te co urt co st, but wa s inste ad an uncon stitution al tax. Peraz a v. State , No

. 01 -1 2- 00 69 0- CR, 20 14 WL 74 76 21 4 (Te x. App. - Ho usto n [1s t Di st .] De c. 30 , 20 14 , pe t. filed) , In reac hing this co nc lusion, this Court relied on Ex pa rt e C ar s on , 15 9
46S.W. 2d 12 6, 13 0 (19 42 ), wh ere in the Court of Criminal Appe als fo und t ha t a $1 law
li br ar y fee wa s “ne ither ne ce ss ary nor incide ntal to the trial of a crim inal ca se ” and as

suc h w as “no t a leg

itimate ” c os t of

co urt. In Per az a , t he Court first addre ss ed the thirty- fiv e pe rce nt of the fun ds wh ich

are to be dep os ited in sta te highw ay fun d. Th e Court det erm ined that the se fun ds
“m ay be use d fo r any fun ction of Tx DOT ” an d are not sp ec ifica lly limited to “de fra y the co sts ass oc iated with co llecting, sto ring, an d t es ting DN A sam ples ” Peraz a at 6 &
7 (em pha sis in original). Afte r ex am ining the Tx DOT 's mis sion sta tem en t and the

va rious sta tutes listing Tx DOT 's res pon sibilities, the Court he ld that be cau se “t he

res pon sibilities of Tx DOT are fa r mo re rem ote fro m a crim in al t r i al than the co unty law l i br ar i es wh ich we re to be use d by the judges and attorn ey s fo r trial pre para tion in
C ar so n”... it co uld not be “rea so nab ly co nc luded that the portio n of the rev en u e

co llecte d throu gh the ‘D NA Rec ord Fe e’ and ded icate d to the sta te highw ay fun d

co ns titutes a prop er co urt co st to be ass es se d again st app ellant or any oth er crim inal def en dan t.” Id

. a t 7. Th e Court the n turne d to the rem aining sixty -f ive pe rce nt wh ich is dep os ited in
the crim inal justice plann ing ac co unt. T E X

. C RI M

. P RO C

. A RT

. 10 2. 02 0( H ). "T he
crim inal justice plann

ing ac co unt is adm iniste red by the Criminal Justice Divi sion ( “CJD ”) of the Go ve rnor's Off ice

. Peraz a at 8 citing T E X

. G O V ' T C O D E A N N

. §77 2. 00 6(

A )(2) ( V ernon 20 12

). Onc e again look

ing at the adm iniste ring organ ization's
mis sion , the C ou r t det erm ined “[t] he CJD ...us es this mo ne y to ‘[ s] upp ort a wide
range of proje ct s des igne d to reduc e crim e and imp rov e the crim inal and juve nile justice sy ste ms .’” P e ra za at 9. Th e Court the n fo und “the crim inal justice plann ing 47ac co unt, wh ich is fun ded by the ‘D NA R ec or d Fe e, ’ [do es not ]p ass [ ] co ns titutional

mu ste r” sta ting:
...th e mo ne y fro m the crim inal justice plann ing fun d is not required to be direc ted to the co urts or to se rvi ce s ne ce ss arily or incide ntally relate d to cr i minal trials. And of ten time s suc h rev en ue is give n to prog ram s that, as t he co urt in Carson sp ec ifica lly not ed, co uld not pos sibly relate to legitima te co urt co sts

. See 159 S .W .2 d at 12 7 (co sts fo r training and edu ca tion not legitima te co urt co sts that ma y be ass es se d again st crim inal def en dan ts). Id ., at 1 0. T his c ourt c os t sh ould b e s truck fro m the co st b ill

. P RA Y E R Mr. Casta ne da pray s this Court rev ers e and r ema nd fo r a ne w trial, or altern ative ly rem and fo r a he aring on the mo tion fo r ne w trial or gr ant a ne w pun ishm en t he aring.
Res pe ctf ully sub mitte d,
A L E X A ND E R B U NI N Chief Pub lic D ef

en der Ha rris Coun ty T ex as /s/ J ani M asel li Woo d

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ J A NI M A SE L L I W O O D Ass istan t Pub lic D ef

en der Ha rris Coun ty T ex as State Ba r Te xas N um be r 00 79 11 95 12 01 Fra nk

lin, 1 3th Floo r Ho usto n T ex as 77 00 2 Jani.M ase lli @p do. hc tx. ne t (71 3) 3 68 -0 01 6 (71 3) 3 68 -4 32 2 TB A No . 0 07 91 19 5

48C E R T IF IC A T E O F S E R

V IC E Purs uant to Te x. R. A pp
. Pro c. 9. 5, this ce rtifies that on Janua ry 28 , 20 15 , a

co py of the fo rego ing wa s em ailed to co uns el fo r the sta te (throu gh tex file. co m) at the fo llowing addre ss : Alan Curry Ass istan t D istrict Atto rne y 12 01 Fra nk

lin Street, 6th Floo r Ho usto n, TX

77 00 2 curry _alan @d ao. hc tx. ne t /s/ J ani Ma sell i Wood

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ JANI MASEL

LI WOOD

49CERT IFI CATE OF COM PL IAN CE

Purs uant to prop os ed Rule 9. 4(i)(3 ), unde rsigne d co uns el ce r tifies that this b rief co mp lies w

ith the typ e- vo lume limitations of Tex. R. A pp. Proc . 9 .4 (e) (i)

. 1. Ex clus ive of the portio ns ex em pte d by T ex. R. Ap p. Proc

. 9. 4 (i)( 1) , this brief co ntains 13 , 5 67 wo rds p rinted in a p ropo rtionally s pac ed typ ef ac e. 2. Th is brief is printe d in a prop ortion all y sp ac ed, se rif typ ef ac e using
Ga ram ond 14 poin t fo nt in tex t and Ga ram ond 14 poin t fo nt in fo otn ote s prod uce d by Core l WordP erf

ec t so ftw are. 3. Un ders i gned co uns el unde rstan ds that a ma terial mis rep res en tation in

co mp leting this ce rtificate , or circu mv en tion of the typ e- vo lume limits in Tex. R. Ap p. Proc

. 9. 4( j) , ma y res ult in the Court's strikin g this brief and i mp os ing san ction s again st the pe rso n w

ho signe d it.

/s/ J ani J M asel li Woo d

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ JANI J. M

ASEL LI WOOD

50