### NUM BER 13-07- 0036 8-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
A LB ERTGA RC IA , A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 6th D istrict Co urt of Sa n Patricio C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s M emo rand um Opin ion b y C hie f J us tice Vald ez App ellant , Albert Ga rcia, app eals his con v iction fo r the murd er of Andre s Ama dor. After findi ng Gar ci a g uil ty , t he j ur y as ses sed puni shmentat li fe impr is onment. See T EX
. P EN AL C O D E A NN
. § 1 9

. 0 2 ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 3 )

. I n s e v e n i s s u e s , G a r c i a c l a i ms t h a t( 1 ) the evidence is legally and factu ally insuf f icient to supp ort (a) his conviction and (b) the jury ’s findi ng thathi s acti ons w er e not the re sul t of sudden passi on; and (2) the tr ial co urt er re d2

by not inc lud ing i n the j ur y ch arge h is re que sts for t he l ess er i ncl uded offenses of
ma ns l au g ht er , c r i mi na l l y n eg l i g en t ho mi c i de , an d ag g r av at ed a s s au l t. W e affi r m.

I. B A CKGRO UND The ev ents surroundi ng Andres ’s death stem f ro m an altercat ion betw een An dr es and G ar ci a. On N ov ember 24, 2005, Ma thi s C ounty Pol ic e Officers H enr

y Guer ra and Gr eg H ino

jos a w er e c all ed to a s hooti ng at An d res’ s p ar ents ’ house on F ra nkl in Street. Upon arriv ing at the reside nce, the of f icers saw

sev eral individuals surroun ding Andre s,
w h o w a s l y i n g o n t h e g r o u n d a n d u n r e s p o n s i v e . A n d r e s w a s t a k e n b y a mb u l a n ce to a
nea rbyhosp ital. Af

ter t h e a m b u lance lef t, Of f icer Guerra spo ke to Ad olfo Am ado r, Andr es’ s b ro ther , w ho provi ded a li st of potenti al sus pect s, w hic h i ncl uded G ar ci a. The of f icers lef t the scene to search for Garcia, bu t the y w ere called back to th e re s iden ce shor tl y thereafter becau se a dr iv e- by sh ooti ng had tak en pla ce. One w it ness i denti fied th e shoot er ’s ca r and prov ide d Officer Guer ra w it h a li cens e plate number

. The car w as found lat er thatni g ht, and the dri v er , J.R ., a juv eni le, w as arrest ed. Andr es died befor e r eachi ng the h ospi tal

. Sev er al months l ater , G ar ci a w as appr ehended in Loui sia n a , and he w as indicte d for And res’s murde r. At trial, the State presen ted the te stim o n y of num erou s respon ding of f icers, inc lud ing Officers G uer ra and Hi noj osa. The off ic ers’ tes ti mony prov ide d bac kg ro und i nto the e v ents i mmediat ely foll ow ing the shoot ing a n d t h e i nv est ig ati on th at l ed to the appr ehens ion of

sev er al cr imi nal parti ci pants , i ncl udi ng Garci a. Ray F er nandez , M .D ., a medic al ex aminer , t est ified as to the resul ts of an autop sy r epor t. F er nandeztes ti fied th at Andr es had c ocai ne and mari huana i n hi s s y ste m, butthe pr esenc e of dr ug s w as not t he
caus e of death. Fer nandez re mov ed thr ee pel let s from Andr es’ s body , and he c oncl uded3

that g unsho t w ounds w er e the ca use of death. J.R . t est ified for t he St ate a bout his i nv olv ement i n the sh ooti ng . On N ov ember 24, 2 0 0 5 , J. R. wa s d ri vin g a ro u n d wit h G a rc ia , a f ri e n d h e h a d kn o wn a b o u ta ye a r, a n d two female pas seng ers, w hen G ar ci a r ece ived a p hone c all from J ason Rod ri g uez , t he A m a d ors’ neighbor. J.R. overheard th e con v ersatio n over the cell pho ne’s spe aker. Rod ri g ueztol d Garc ia thathe needed his help bec ause “t hese dudes are mess ing w it h me, and bri ng the g un.” J.R . t hen drov e Garci a to a fri end’ s h ouse, w her e Garci a ex it ed th e c ar and retur ned hol din g a s hotg un and in t h e co mpany of Lui s M ar q uez . The g ro up th en drove to Rodriguez’ s h ouse , and G arcia and Marquez exited the ca r. J.R. testif ied th at it
w as da rk, but he saw

Garcia talking to And res. J.R. fu rther test if ied t h a t h e sa w Garcia shootthree or

four shot s a t An dr es, and then Gar ci a ran bac k t o the ca r ex cl aimi ng , “ I t hin k I shot him [,] I think I shot him . If I did[,] I did n’t me an it.” Th e group drove to Rodriguez’ s mo the r’s house, and Ga rc ia f le d into the woods. J.R. the n drove Rig o Garcia, Alb ert Gar ci a’s brother , and M ar q uezbac k t o the Amadors ’ house so that Rig o could ex ecut e a dr iv e- by sh ooti ng . Later

thatday , J .R . w a s a p p re h e n d ed by pol ic e. J.R . t est ified at Gar ci a’s tr ial su bje ct to a ple a barg ain w it h the Sta te. T he St ate a ls o p resen ted the te stimo ny of Albert “Red” Del Bosque Am ado r, And res’s brothe r, abou t the ev ent s that took p la c e b e fore an d du ring the shoo ting. He tes ti fied th at on N ov ember 24, 2005, he g ot i nto a n al ter cat ion i n R odr ig uez ’s y ard. Red cl aimed that he punched Rod ri g uezand that Ro dr ig uezretur ned t o hi s h ouse sta ti ng that he was g oing to call some peo ple. Af ter ent ering his hou se, R odriguez exited w ith a brick,
w hic h he thr ew

at Re d

. A lt houg h the br ic k h ithi m, R ed c lai med thathe i g nor ed i t and
e n te re d hi s p a re n ts ’ h o u se , whe re se vera l o f h is rel a ti ves h a d gat h e re d fo r T h a n ks givin g.4

Lat er, several indiv idua ls appe ared on the Ama dors’ law n y elling an d scream ing. Garcia joi ned t he i ndi v idu als , and sh outed to R ed, “ I’ m g oin g to ki ll y ou.” R ed furt her tes ti fied th at he and Andr es w alk ed out of t he Amadors’ house as Gar ci a w as sc re aming ; G ar ci a the n opened fire

. Garcia test if ied in his own def ense . Garcia test if ied th at he had v isited Rod rig uez’s house before the s hooti ng , and dur ing thatv is it , he w it ness ed an alt er cat ion betw een Andr es and “ W il o” Trev ino

. Gar ci a tes ti fied that Andr es str uck Trev ino w it h a bat and t hat Red had a bl ack

handg un, b ut t hat h e nev er took i t out

. Gar ci a l e ft th e s ce n e , buthe
re tur ned t o R odr ig uez ’s hous e l ater thatday

. Gar ci a tes ti fied th a t he retur ned t o Rod rigu e z’s house i n a c ar dr iv en by

J. R. to re tur n a s hotg un to R odr ig uez ; he w as confro nted by

Andres and R ed w hen he ar ri v ed out si de of R odr ig uez ’s h o u se . Dur ing Ga r c i a’ s s ec on d v i s i t, G ar c i a te s ti fi ed t ha t An dres p ul l ed ou t a g un an d po i nt ed i t ath i m. Gar cia f ired a w ar nin g sh ot fro m the shot g un i nto t he ai r and t hr ee s hots i n the di re cti on of Andre s and Red beca use h e feare d for h is life and wante d to scare the m. Af ter the third shot , G ar ci a heard Andres sc re am and h e “ freake d out and ra n back to t he c ar .” H e the n escap ed in th e car. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , t he St ate q uest ion ed Garc ia about hi s mental state dur ing the s hooti ng . The foll ow ing ex chang e transpi re d: [Sta te]: Oka y . So y ou di d s hoot Andr es Amador w it h a firear m, and the firear m w as a s hotg un? [Garcia] : Yes, sir

. [Sta te]: Oka y . Ar e y ou s ay ing thaty ou di d noti n tenti onal ly or knowingl y

shoo t at An dres? [ G a r c i a ] : Y e a h

. Y e s , s i r . I a m s a y i n g t h a t I d i d n ’ t i n t e n t i o n all yor5 k no w i ng l y

s ho ota t hi m. [Sta te]: Oka y . A moment ag o—I g uess i t w as before lun ch y ou had

tes ti fied th at y ou di d s hoot at hi m, r ig ht? [Garci a]: Y es, si r, I did

. [S ta te ]: Ok ay . S o di d y ou i nt en d to s ho ota t hi m? [Garcia] : Yes, sir . I fe lt my life w as in dan ger. [Sta te]: Oka y . And w hen y ou s hot a t hi m di d y ou k now thatsh ooti ng a s h o t gu n a t s o m e b o d y c o u ld c a u s e t h e d e a t h o f so m e b o d y? [Garci a]: Y es, si r, I did

. After the e v ide n ce w as pr esent ed, G ar ci a propose d tha t t he j ur y be i nst ru cte d on the l aw of m a n sl aug hter , c ri minal ly neg li g ent h omic ide , dea dly co nduct , and ag g ra v ated
ass aul t. Ac cordin g to Gar ci a, hi s t est imony prov ide d ev ide nce to s uppor t an ins tr uct ion on the se l es s er

i nc l ud ed o ffens es . Th e tr i al c ou rt, h ow ev er , ov er r ul ed G arc i a’ s r eq uests. Ins tead, the jur

y w as ins tr uct ed on the l aw of murde r, acc ompli ce tes ti mony , s elf- defense, and d ead ly

f orce; it foun d Garcia guilty o f m urde r. D uring the pu nishm ent pha se, th e jury
w as ins tr uct ed th at i f Garc ia est abl is hed by a pr eponderance of the ev ide nce that he ac ted out o f sudden pass ion ar is ing from an ade qua te c a u se, then the o ff ense w as a s econd
deg re e felony ; other

w is e, it w as a first- deg re e felony

. The ju ry found thatGarci a’s ac ti ons
w er e notthe re sul t of su dden pa ss ion a ris in g f ro m adeq uate caus e, an d i t as ses sed pun ish m e n t a t life in prison. Garcia f iled a m otion for new trial, w hich th e trial court
ov er ru led

. The tr ial courtsig ned a jud g ment reflec ti ng the jur y ’s v erdic t and puni shment

. This appeal ens ued. II. L E GA L A ND F A CTUA L S UF FI CI E NCY By hi s four th an d fifth i ss ues, Garci a c ontends th at t he ev ide nce is factual ly and6

legally in suf

f icient to supp ort his conviction for mu rder. In his sixth an d seventh issues, Garcia argues tha t the ev iden ce is legally and factu ally

insuf f icien t t o sup port th e jury ’s neg ati v e findi ng on t he puni shmenti ss ue of sud den pas si on. A . St and ard s o f Rev iew W hen rev iew ing the legal suf f iciency of

the evidence , w e con sider all the reco rd
ev ide nce in the l ig ht most f av or abl e to the jur y ’s ve rd ic t and determi ne w hether , based o n that ev ide nce and reason abl e i nferenc es therefrom, a ra ti onal j ur y co uld hav e found the
acc used g uil ty

of all of the e lement s o f the off ense bey ond a re aso n abl e doubt

. Swear ing en v . St ate , 1 0 1 S. W .3 d 89 , 9 5 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ) (ci ti n g Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U .S. 307, 3 1 9 (1 9 7 9) ). F urther , our r ev iew enc ompass es all the ev ide nce, w hether proper ly or improp er ly

admitted. See M

ar shal l v. State , 21 0 S. W .3 d 61 8, 6 25 ( Tex

. C r i m. App . 200 6). In a f actu al suf

f iciency revi ew, w e v iew a ll of t he evidence in a neu tral light and ask
w hether the fact- finder

w as rat ion all y

just ified in f ind ing gui ltbey ond a re asona ble doubt

. See Watson v. State , 204 S.W .3d 4 04, 4 15 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2006)

. Ev id e n ce maybe factual ly i nsuffici ent i f the ev ide nce is “ so w eak” thatthe v erd ic t “ seems cl ear ly w ro ng or manifest ly

unj ust ,” or

the v er dic t i s “ ag ain st the g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the evidence. ” Id. at 414- 15, 4 17; see a lso Marshall , 210 S.W .3d at 625. A v erdict i s clearly
w rong an d m a n if estly unju st if the jury's f inding “shocks the conscien ce” or “cl early dem onst rates bia s.” Gar za v . St ate , 213 S.W .3d 338, 344 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 2007) ( ci ti ng Santel lan v. Sta te , 939 S.W .2d 155, 164 (Tex . Cr im. App. 1997) ). W e measure the factual suffici ency

of the e v ide nce ag ain st a hy pothet ic all y co rrectj ur

y ch arg e author iz ed by

the7

ind ic tment. See Fuller

v. Sta te , 73 S.W .3d 2 50, 2 52 ( Tex . C rim. App. 2002) ; Gollihar v. State , 46 S.W .3d 2 43, 2 54 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2001) ; Ma li k v. State , 953 S. W .2d 2 34, 2 36- 40 (Te x . Crim. App . 199 7). B. A pp licab le L aw A person commi ts the off ense of murder if he int enti onal ly or know ing ly ca uses the dea th of an individual, or inte nds to cause serious bod ily injuryand comm its an act clea rly dang erous to hu man life that causes the death of an indi v idu al. T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 1 9

. 0 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) , ( 2 )

. G a r c i a c o n t e n d s t h a th e u s e d d e a d l y fo rc e agai nstAn d r e s i n s e l fdefense. A p erson is g ener all y j ust ified i n us ing deadl y forc e ag ain st another i f he
reaso nab ly believes tha t dea dly force i s nece ssary to protect himself against the o t h e r’s
use o r attem pte d use of unlawfu l d e a d ly f orce, an d a reaso nab le person in the act or’s si tuati on w oul d nothav e r etr eated. Id . §§ 9.31( a) , 9. 32( a) ( Ver non Su pp. 2 007)

. A defendant has the burden of produc ing some ev ide nce to suppor t a cl aim of sel f-defense. See Z uli ani v. Sta te , 97 S.W .3d 5 89, 5 94 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2003)

. Onc e the defendant produce s some e v ide nce, the Stat e the n bears t he burden of persuas ion to dis prov e the rais ed defense. Saxton v . St ate , 8 0 4 S

. W

. 2 d 9 1 0 , 9 1 3 (T e x. Crim. App . 199 1). T he b urde n o f p ersua sion do es no t require the Sta te to produ ce ev ide nce; i t req uires onl y th a t t he St ate p ro v e i ts cas e bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. Id

. Thus, to c onv ic t a defendant of murder after he h as ra is ed th e i ss ue of sel f-defense, the Stat e is req uired to prov e the elements of the off ense bey ond a re asona ble doubtand to persuade the jur

y bey ond a re asona ble doubt that the defendant did not ki ll i n s elf- defense. See i d. at 91 4.8

After the j ur

y co nv ic ted G ar ci a of murde r, it entered a neg ati v e findi ng on t he i ss ue of sudd en p assion . At the p unish me nt sta ge of a mu rder trial, “the de fend ant may raise the i ss ue as t o wh e th er he c aused the death under the immedi ate i nfluenc e of sudd en passio n a ri s ing from ade quate ca use. ” T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 19. 02( d) . “ Sudden pass ion ” means “p ass ion di re ctl y caus ed by and ar is ing out of prov ocat ion by the ind iv idu al killed.” Id . § 19. 02(a )(2). “Ade quate cause ” m ean s “cause th at w ould comm only produce a deg re e of ang er , rag e, resent ment, or ter ro r in a person of ordin ar y temper , suffici ent t o rend er the min d incap able of cool ref lection .” Id . § 19.02( a) (1 ). If the defendant prov es the is sue by a pr eponderance of t he ev ide nce, the off ense is re duced to a se cond- deg re e felony

. Id . § 19. 02(d ). C. A nal ysis On ap peal , G ar ci a a rgues that the e v ide nce is l eg all y and factual ly

i nsuffici ent t o suppo rthi s murder

co nv ic ti on bec ause he di d not act know ing ly and int enti onal ly

w hen he shotAndres. G ar ci a arg ues that the State di d notes tabl is h tha t he had t he req uis it e i ntent
w hen he re tur ned t o Rod ri g uez ’s house and that the w ar nin g sh ot he fir ed ev ide nces that he d id not inten d to kill Andres. Inte nt to kill is a q uest ion of fact de term ined bythe jury from all the facts and c ircums tanc es in ev ide nce. Mc W hor ter v. Sta te , 957 S.W .2d 9 28, 930 ( Tex . Ap p.–Bea umont 19 97, n o pet .)

. How ev er , proo f o f a cu lpa ble mental st ate almos t inv ar iab ly

depend s u pon c ircums tanti al ev ide nce. Ma rt in v. State , 246 S.W .3d 2 46, 261 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [14t h Dist.] 200 7, no pet. ). Inten t can be inferred from the act s,
w or ds, and condu ct of the defendant. Patr ic k v . St ate , 90 6 S. W .2 d 48 1, 487 (Te x . C r i m. App. 1995)

.9

In the inst ant cas e, G ar ci a tes ti fied th at he sh ot i n the di re cti on of Andres and R ed, but t hat h e meant to s care the m and no t t o k il l them. Gar ci a’s sel f-ser v ing tes ti mony is the only piece of evidence that cuts against th e elem ent of inten t. On the othe r hand , the jury hea rd Red’s testim ony that Ga rcia shout ed o ut, “ I ’m g o in g to kill y ou, ” some time b efore the s hooti ng oc cur re d. Und er a l eg al and f act ual su ff ic ien cy r ev iew , t he fact finder

i s t he sol e j udg e of the w it ness ’s credi bil it y and the w eig ht gi v en to the w it ness ’s testi mony . See W esbr ook v. State , 29 S. W .3d 103 , 111 (T ex. Crim. App

. 200 0) (leg al suf f iciency rev iew ); Johns on v. State , 23 S.W .3d 1, 7 (Tex . Cr im. App. 2000) (factual suff ic ien cy r ev iew ). The jur y co uld hav e bel iev ed R ed’ s t est imony r eg ardin g Garci a’s ex cl amati on. The r e cord, therefore, cont ain s l eg ally and factual ly

su ff ic ien t ev ide nce re g ardin g Garci a’s i ntent

. Gar ci a’s fourt h and fifth is sues ar e ov er ru led

. Next, Ga rci a arg ues that the q ual it y and q uanti ty

of the e v ide nce pr esent ed est abl is hed hi s p uni shmenti ss ue of sud den pas si on and that the j ur y ’s ans w er

r est s o n legally and factu ally

insuf f icient evidence

. G arcia f urthe r argues tha t during h is se cond v isit to R odr ig uez ’s h ouse, he i ntended onl y to re tur n R odr ig uez ’s sh otg un, b ut t hat A ndr es br andi shed a handg un. Gar ci a c lai ms he fire d on Andr es and R ed bec ause the s hock of bei ng co nfronted w it h a g un c aused hi m to b e i ncapa ble of cool r eflect ion

. In conduc ti ng our

l eg al suffici ency

r ev iew , w e l ook for onl y ev ide nce that suppo rt s a neg ati v e findi ng on t he s udden p ass ion q uest ion

. Clevel and v . St ate , 177 S.W .3d 3 74, 387 ( Tex

. App.–H oust on [1s t Di st. ] 2005, pet. re f’d) ; Howard v. State , 145 S.W .3d 3 27, 3 34 (Te x . App .–Fo rt W orth 20 04, no pe t.). I n t h is case, we note th at Ga rcia w as the only
w it ness w ho te sti fied th at A ndr es w as ar med w hen he w a s shot. Non e of the other10

w itnesse s testif ied th at the y sa w A ndre s with a gun when Garcia shot h im. Th us, th ere is
some e v ide nce to s how thatGarci a w as not c onfronte d by an a rmed a n ta gon ist. The
re maini ng r ele v ant e v ide nce show s that Gar ci a w it ness ed an ag g re ss iv e epi sode betw een Andr es and Tr ev ino ear li er dur ing the day

and that he retur ned t o R odr ig uez ’s hous e w it h
a s hotg un to hel p Rod ri g uez deal w it h nei g hbor hood tens ion s. Thus, the sudde n pas si on tha t Garcia claims to have experience d ma y n ot have bee n “directly ca used b y ” Andres’s prov ocat ion , butmay

hav e been unr ela ted. The r ecord, t her efore, cont ain s l eg all y and factual ly su ff ic ien t ev ide nce to suppor t t he j ur y ’s neg ati v e findi ng on s udden p ass ion ; therefore, Gar ci a’s si xth an d s ev enth is sues ar e ov er ru led

. III . C H A R GE E RROR By hi s first, se cond, and thi rd i ss ues, Garci a contends that the tri al cour t erred in not instructin g the jury on the l esser includ ed o f fense s of

inv olun tary ma nslau ghter, criminally neg li g ent h omic ide , and ag g ra v ated ass aul t. A . St and ard o f Rev iew “W hen rev iew ing ch arg e er ro rs, an appe ll ate c our t mus t und ertak e a tw o- ste p re v ie w: f irst, the cour

t mus t det er mine w hether er ro r act ual ly

ex is ts in the c harg e, an d
secon d, th e cou rt must dete rmine w het her suf f icient harm resulte d f rom th e error to require
rev ersal.” Abdnor

v. Sta te , 871 S .W .2 d 7 2 6, 73 1- 32 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1994)

. W e us e a tw o- prong ed te st to de ter mine w hether a de fendant i s e nti tl ed to an i nstruc ti on on a les ser-i ncl uded offense. See G uz man v. Sta te , 188 S.W .3d 1 85, 1 88 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2006) ; Sal

ina s v . St ate , 163 S.W .3d 7 34, 7 41 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2005)

. The firs t s tep i s t o deter mine w hether

an off ense is a les ser-i ncl uded of fense of the al leg ed offense. Hall v.11

State , 225 S.W .3d 5 24, 5 35 ( Tex . Crim. App. 2007) ; Sal ina s , 163 S.W .3d at 741 . Th is deter minat ion i s a q uest ion of law and does not d epend o n the ev ide nce to be produce d at t he tr ial

. Hall , 225 S.W .3d a t 535

. A n o ffe n s e i s a l e s s e r- i n c l u d e d o ffe n s e i f: (1 ) iti s e sta bli shed by

proof o f t he same or les s than all the facts re q uired to est abl is h the co mmiss ion of the o ff ense charg ed; (2 ) itdi ff ers from the off ense charg ed onl y in the respec t t hat a l ess se ri ous inj ur y or r is k o f inj ur

y to the s ame person, proper ty , or publ ici nterestsu ff ic es to es tabl is h i ts commi ss ion ; (3) it dif fers f rom the of

fense charged on ly

in the respe ct tha t a less culpa ble mental st ate s uff ic es to es tabl is h i ts commi ss ion ; or (4) it consists of

an att em pt to comm it the of fense charged or an ot herwi se inc lud ed offense. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 37.09 (V er non 200 6)

. If the greater off ense maybe commi tted in more than one manner , t he manner al leg ed w il l deter mine the a v ail abi li ty of les ser-i ncl uded offenses. Hall , 225 S.W .3d a t 531

. The sec ond s tep i s t o det er mine if there i s s ome ev ide nce that w oul d per mit a ra ti onal j ur

y to find th at t he defendant is g uil ty of the l ess er

off ense, bu t not g uil ty

of the g re ater

. Id . at536; Sal ina s , 1 6 3 S

. W

. 3 d a t7 4 1 ; Fe ldm an v . St ate , 71 S.W .3d 7 38, 7 50 (Te x . C r i m. A p p . 2 0 0 2 )

. A n y t h i n g mo r e t h a n a s c i n t i l l a o f e v i d e n c e ma y b e s u ffi ci ent t o enti tl e a defendant to a charg e on the l ess er off ense. Hall , 225 S.W .3d at 536. “[I] t i s n ot enoug h tha t the jur

y m ay disbel iev e cruc ial ev ide nce per tai nin g to the g re ater

off ense, but
ra ther , there must be some e v ide nce direct ly g er mane to the l ess er-i ncl uded offense for the f inde r of

fact to conside r before an instruction on a l e s ser-include d of fense is
w arrante d.” Ham

pton v. State , 109 S.W .3d 437, 441 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2003)

. W e rev iew12

all ev ide nce pr esent ed at tri al to mak e thi s d eter minat ion

. Rou ss eau v . St ate , 855 S.W .2d 666, 673 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1993) . I f the ev ide nce ra is es the i ss u e o f a l ess er-i ncl uded off ense, a j ur

y ch arg e mustbe g iv en bas ed on that ev iden ce , “whet her produce d by

the Sta te or the def end ant and w het her it be stron g, w eak, unim pea ched , or cont radicte d.” Id

. a t 6 7 2 (quo ti n g Bel

l v. State , 693 S.W .2d 434 , 442 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 85)). B. A pp licab le L aw A pers on commits m ansl aug hter “if he re ck les sl y

causes the death of an i ndi v idu al. ” T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 19. 04(a ) (Verno n 200 3). A perso n is reckless w hen he is aw are of but c onsc iou sl y

di sreg ar ds a s ubst anti al and unj ust ifiab le ri sk that the ci rc umstan ces sur ro undi ng hi s c onduc t ex is t or the re sul t w il l occ ur . Id . § 6.03( c) ( Ver non 200 3)

. Cr imi nal ly

neg li g ent h omic ide i nv olv es caus ing the death of another by cr imi nal neg li g ence. Id

. § 19.05( a) ( Ver non 200 3)

. A person is cr imi nal ly neg li g ent w hen he oug ht to be aw are of

a substa ntial an d un justif iable risk that the circum stan ces surroun ding his condu ct ex is t or

the re sul t w il l occ ur . Id . § 6.0 3(d). Crimin al negligence is a less culpab le mental sta te t han reck les s. Con roy v . St ate , 843 S.W .2d 67, 71 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [1st Di st. ] 199 2, pe t. re f’d)

. Cr imi nal neg li g ence inv olv es ina ttent iv e r is k c re ati on—t he ac tor oug ht t o be aw ar e of the ri sk su rroundi ng hi s conduc t or the res ult s t her eof. Lugo v . St ate , 667 S. W .2d 1 44, 1 48 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1984)

. Rec kl ess co nducti nv olv es cons ci ous ri sk creati on; t hat i s, the act or is aw ar e of the ri sk su rroundi ng his condu ct or the re sul ts thereof, but cons ci ousl y dis re g ards that ri sk

. Id

. At the hea rt of

reckless cond uct is consciou s disregard of the risk c re a t e d by the acto r’s condu ct; the key

to cr imi nal neg li g ence is found i n the fail ur e of the act or to per cei v e the13

ri sk

. Id . Before a cha rg e on criminallyneglige n t h om icide is req uired, the reco rd mu st cont ain ev ide nce show ing an u naw ar eness of the r is k. Me ndieta v. State , 706 S.W .2d 6 51, 652 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 86). C. A nal ysis T he reco rd doe s not est ablish th at Ga rcia , i f guilty, w as guilty

only of the lesse ri n c l u d e d o ffe n s e o f m a n s l a u g h t e r . G a r c i a a d mi t s t h a th e i n t e n t i o n a l l y s h o t A n d r e s i n s e l fdefense bec ause Andr es br andi shed a g un, a nd Ga rc ia feared for hi s li fe. The commi ss ion of an actcl ear ly dang erous to hu man l ife s uff ic es to s uppor t a conv ic ti on for murde r under

se cti on 19. 02( b) (2 ) of the pena l code and i s n ot a re ck les s a ct. T EX
. P ENAL C OD E A NN
. § 19.02( b) (2 ). And one c annot re ck les sl y ac t i n s elf- defense. Johns on v . St ate , 915 S.W .2d 653, 659 (Tex . App.–H oust on [14th Di st. ] 199 6, pe t. re f'd); Avi la v. State , 954 S.W .2d 830 , 843 (Tex. App. –El Pa so 19 97, pet. ref 'd) (hold in g inten tiona l condu ct is impl ic itin clai m of sel f-defense) . The tr ial courtdi d noter r in re fusing Garci a’s r eq uest ed charg e on mansl aug hter

. Gar ci a’s first is sue is ov er ru led

. Reg ar din g Garci a’s r eq uestfor a n i nst ru cti on on cr imi nal ly neg li g ent h omic ide , Garcia test if ied th at he knew shoo ting a shotgun a t som eon e c o u ld kill that indiv idua l. Addi ti onal ly , t he record i s dev oid of any ev ide nce show ing thatGarci a w as unaw ar e of the ri sk of shoot ing the shot g un at Andres

. The tr ial court , ther efore, did not er r in r efusing to instruct th e jury on the off ense of criminallyneglig ent hom icide. Garcia’s secon d issue is
ov er ru led

. Fi nal ly , w e r eac h G a rci a’s thi rd i ss ue, w hic h i nv olv es his r eq uestthatthe jur y be charg ed on ag g ra v a te d a ss aul t. In cer tai n c ircums tanc es, ag g ra v ated ass aul t c an be a14

les ser-i ncl uded off ense of murder

. For est v. Sta te , 989 S.W .2d 3 65, 3 68 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1999) ; Sledge v

. St ate , 860 S.W .2d 7 10, 7 13- 14 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 1 9 9 3 , pet . ref'd)

. A perso n com mits assa ult if the pe rson inte ntion ally , knowing ly , or recklessly cause s bod ily injur y to another

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 2 2

. 0 1 ( V e r n o n S u p p . 2 0 0 7 )

. A p er son com mits aggrav ate d assa ult if the pe rson com mits assau lt a nd cause s se rious bod ily injury to an other or uses or ex hib it s a deadl y w eapon d ur ing the commi ss ion of the a ss aul t. See id. § 22 .02 ( Ver non Su pp. 2 007)

. In th is case, And res died as a result of hom icide. But , the re is evidence, f rom Red ’s tes ti mony , t hat G ar ci a i ntended to ki ll one of the Amadors. Ther efore, the t ri al cour t di d not
er r in re fusing to charg e the j ur y on a g g ra v ated ass aul t. A murde r defendant i s n ot en ti tl ed to an instruction on the lesser-include d of fense of aggravated assault when the ev iden ce show ed him, at the lea st, to be g uil ty of a homic ide

. Forest , 989 S .W .2d a t 367

. Garcia’s thi rd i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. IV. C ONCL US I ON The tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment i s a ff ir med.
RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 21s t day

of Aug ust , 200 8.