Court Opinion

ID: 9555523
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-13 07:09:47.495271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:36:20.598307
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Majority Opinion and Concurring Opinion filed August 8,
2023.

                                            In The

                        Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                                   NO. 14-21-00461-CR

                          GORGE LUIS OLMOS, Appellant

                                               V.
                          THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                       On Appeal from the 239th District Court
                              Brazoria County, Texas
                          Trial Court Cause No. 84354-CR

                               CONCURRING OPINION

       This aggravated assault case is about the gay panic defense.1 The State knew
it and directly confronted it at trial: “If we assume that [deceased complainant]
       1
          See, e.g., People v. Rodriguez, 64 Cal. 253 Rptr. 255 (1967) (mentioning claim by
defendant accused of murder that he “did not know the nature and quality of his act at the time of
the attack and was acting as a result of an acute homosexual panic brought on him by the fear
that the victim was molesting him sexually”); see generally Omar T. Russo, How to Get Away
with Murder: The “Gay Panic” Defense, 35 TOURO L. REV. 811 (2019); David Alan Perkiss, A
New Strategy For Neutralizing the Gay Panic Defense at Trial: Lessons From The Lawrence
King Case, 60 UCLA L. REV. 778 (2013); Cynthia Lee, The Gay Panic Defense, 42 U.C. DAVIS
L. REV. 471 (2008).
came on to or made an advance on the defendant -- okay -- was there anything that
you learned or saw be it from the defendant or the physical evidence that showed
you that [defendant] had the right to beat [complainant] to death?”

      Unfortunately, the State and the majority have reframed the issues raised in
appellant’s brief, restating them in a manner that downplays appellant’s use of the
gay panic defense. I see no reason to join the majority in doing that. The defense
strategy should be recognized for what it is.

      I agree with affirming the trial court’s judgment as challenged on appeal and
concur in this court’s judgment. I do not join the majority opinion, which in
addition to my concern about reframing appellant’s issues, also has an
unnecessarily complicated discussion in issue one of the requirements to preserve a
complaint for appellate review. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); Laws v. State, 640
S.W.3d 227, 229–31 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022) (discussing Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)).

                                       /s/       Charles A. Spain
                                                 Justice

Panel consists of Justices Spain, Poissant, and Wilson (Wilson, J., majority).
Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

                                             2