Court Opinion

ID: 9691787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 09:10:09.614061+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:19:13.433560
License: Public Domain

IN THE
                           TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                                  No. 10-22-00370-CR

JOHNNY ALVIN WILSON,
                                                              Appellant
v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                                              Appellee

                            From the 54th District Court
                             McLennan County, Texas
                            Trial Court No. 2020-1292-C2

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

       In one issue, appellant, Johnny Alvin Wilson, challenges his conviction for capital

murder. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.03. Specifically, Johnny contends that the

evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s rejection of his self-defense claim. We affirm.
                                        Background

        Johnny was charged by indictment with murdering Christopher Wilson and

Rachel Strickland, the parents of his wife, Ashley Wilson. In the jury charge, the trial

court included a self-defense instruction. The jury rejected Johnny’s self-defense claim,

found him guilty of the charged offense, and assessed punishment at life in prison. The

trial court certified Johnny’s right to appeal, and this appeal followed.

                                       Self-Defense

        In his sole issue on appeal, Johnny argues that the evidence is insufficient to

support the jury’s rejection of his self-defense claim. We disagree.

APPLICABLE LAW

        A person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the

actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against

the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 9.31(a). A

“reasonable belief” is one that an ordinary and prudent person would hold in the same

circumstances as the actor. Id. § 1.07(a)(42).

        A defendant has the burden of producing some evidence to support a claim of self-

defense. See Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); see also London v.

State, 325 S.W.3d 197, 202 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. ref’d). The State has the burden

of persuasion in disproving self-defense. See Zuliani, 97 S.W.3d at 594; see also London, 325

S.W.3d at 202. Self-defense is an issue of fact to be determined by the jury. London, 325

Wilson v. State                                                                        Page 2
S.W.3d at 202. A jury’s guilty verdict is an implicit finding rejecting the defendant’s self-

defense theory. Id.

        Because the State bears the burden of persuasion to disprove self-defense by

establishing its case beyond a reasonable doubt, we review sufficiency challenges to the

jury’s rejection of self-defense under the Jackson v. Virginia standard. Smith v. State, 355

S.W.3d 138, 145 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref’d). In resolving the

sufficiency of the evidence issue, we look not to whether the State presented evidence

which refuted appellant’s self-defense evidence, but rather we determine whether after

viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier

of fact would have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt

and also would have found against appellant on the self-defense issue beyond a

reasonable doubt. Braughton v. State, 569 S.W.3d 592, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018).

        The reviewing court must defer to the jury’s determinations of the witnesses’

credibility and the weight to be given to their testimony, as the jury is the sole judge of

such matters. Mitchell v. State, 590 S.W.3d 597, 604 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019,

no pet.) (internal citations omitted). Furthermore, self-defense is a fact issue to be

determined by the jury, and the jury is free to accept or reject any defensive evidence on

the issue. Id. (citing Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910, 913-14 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)).

Wilson v. State                                                                           Page 3
DISCUSSION

        Johnny does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the elements

of his conviction for capital murder. Rather, he argues that no rational juror could have

found beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not reasonably believe the use of deadly

force was immediately necessary to protect himself from the use or attempted use of

unlawful force by Christopher.

        The record reflects that on the day in question, Ashley and Johnny were at

Johnny’s house with Ashley’s mother, Rachel Strickland. Rachel was over helping

Ashley and Johnny care for their baby. The three of them decided to barbecue. Ashley’s

siblings, Landon and Haley Wilson, as well as Ashley’s father, Christopher Wilson, were

invited over to the house, although Johnny only approved of Rachel at the gathering.

According to Ashley, Christopher, Rachel, and Johnny did not have a good relationship

because Christopher and Rachel did not approve of Ashley having a relationship with

Johnny, her second cousin.       Ashley testified that Christopher’s disapproval of the

relationship was expressed repeatedly in text messages and phone calls threatening to

come over and hurt Johnny, who is 5’6” tall, weighs 120 pounds, and has a disabled right

arm. In fact, in August 2019, Ashley and Johnny called the Bellmead Police Department

to report that Christopher and Christopher’s brother, Keith Wilson, were threatening

Johnny.

Wilson v. State                                                                    Page 4
        In any event, on the day in question, Landon, Haley, and Rachel were swimming

in an inflatable pool while Ashley, Johnny, and Christopher were sitting next to each

other talking. Ashley testified that Johnny was trying to get along with the family that

day, which Haley characterized as unusual. At some point, Rachel exited the pool when

Johnny mentioned that Ashley was crying.          Then, Landon and Haley began to

roughhouse, and as Haley noted, “[Johnny] was like, if we don’t get out of the pool, then

he's gonna cut the pool and we’re gonna fly toward the fence.” As Landon was exiting

the pool, he heard gunshots. Landon saw Johnny shoot Christopher five times in the

chest and stomach while Christopher was talking on a cell phone sitting in the back of

Johnny’s Chevy Blazer that was open.

        Neither Haley nor Landon heard Johnny and Christopher yelling or arguing that

day. However, Ashley testified that Christopher had been drinking heavily that day and

that Christopher “said that he was going to come back later that night with his brother

Keith Wilson and they were gonna mess up Johnny and take me and our son.” Ashley

recalled that Johnny did not immediately pull out his gun and start shooting when

Christopher purportedly made this threat. Rather, Johnny “walked away to try and cool

off.”   Ashley acknowledged that approximately twenty or thirty minutes elapsed

between Christopher’s purported threat and Johnny firing the first shots. Ashley also

admitted that Christopher did not state that he was “gonna mess” Johnny up “right now”

and that Christopher “never physically put his hand on [Johnny].”

Wilson v. State                                                                    Page 5
        After Johnny shot Christopher, Johnny went inside his house to reload his

revolver. While Johnny was reloading his revolver, Rachel went over and tried to revive

Christopher. Shortly thereafter, Johnny exited the house and shot Rachel in the back from

two feet away while she was crouched over Christopher.

        The State also presented testimony from Irma Denise Martinez, one of Johnny’s

neighbors. She recalled having Johnny over for a meal and hearing him say that “he

wished he can kill them because he didn’t like them.” Martinez understood “them” to

mean “Landon and Christopher Wilson and Ashley’s mom.”

        Johnny’s self-defense theory is premised on the strained relationship he had with

Christopher and Rachel, as well as the verbal threat purportedly made by Christopher on

the day in question. We first note that verbal provocation does not justify self-defense.

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 9.31(b)(1) (“The use of force against another is not

justified . . . in response to verbal provocation alone.”); Braughton, 569 S.W.3d at 606.

Furthermore, “prior disagreements” also do not justify self-defense, especially

considering Ashley’s testimony that Christopher had “never physically put his hand on

[Johnny].” See Elmore v. State, 257 S.W.3d 257, 259 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008,

no pet.) (noting that evidence regarding “prior disagreements” between defendant and

the victim supported a determination that the defendant was not entitled to a self-defense

instruction as a matter of law); see also Williams v. State, No. 06-10-00156-CR, 2011 Tex.

App. LEXIS 1657, at *14 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated

Wilson v. State                                                                     Page 6
for publication) (concluding that a rational juror could have concluded, beyond a

reasonable doubt, that Williams lacked a reasonable belief that force was immediately

necessary to protect himself from the use or attempted use of unlawful force where the

evidence showed that Williams and the victim engaged in “verbal disagreements,” but

these disagreements never escalated to “fists being used”).

        Moreover, the evidence does not establish that Johnny’s use of force was

immediately necessary to protect him against the use or attempted use of unlawful force

by Christopher. See Henley v. State, 493 S.W.3d 77, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (noting that

“[b]oth self-defense and defense of a third person require that there be a reasonable belief

in the immediate need to act” and that in the context of self-defense and defense of a third

person, “force that is immediately necessary to protect oneself or another from a person’s

use of unlawful force is force that is needed at that moment—when a split second decision

is required” (internal quotations & citation omitted)). Indeed, Ashley stated that Johnny

walked away to cool off after Christopher threatened him and that about twenty to thirty

minutes elapsed between the threat and the shooting of Christopher. And finally, Johnny

does not direct us to any evidence presented at trial showing the use or attempted use of

unlawful force by Rachel, who was present at the gathering to take care of Ashley and

Johnny’s baby.

        Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that

a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of capital murder and

Wilson v. State                                                                       Page 7
against Johnny’s claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. See TEX. PENAL CODE

ANN. § 19.03; see also Braughton, 569 S.W.3d at 609; Smith, 355 S.W.3d at 145. As such, we

overrule Johnny’s sole issue on appeal.

                                             Conclusion

        We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                                         STEVE SMITH
                                                         Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,
       Justice Smith,
       and Justice Wright1
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed August 23, 2023
Do not publish
[CRPM]

        1
           The Honorable Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired) of the Eleventh Court of Appeals,
sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. §§ 74.003,
75.002, 75.003.

Wilson v. State                                                                                    Page 8