Court Opinion

ID: 9411590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-27 07:08:46.279245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:59.893253
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS
                                      EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                           EL PASO, TEXAS

    JUAN JOSE ORTEGA,                                       §                  No. 08-23-00023-CR

                                     Appellant,             §                     Appeal from the

    v.                                                      §              399th Judicial District Court

    THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                     §                 of Bexar County, Texas

                                     Appellee.              §                  (TC# 2018CR12021)

                                        MEMORANDUM OPINION

         A jury convicted Appellant Juan Jose Ortega of murder for fatally stabbing Guy LaRue.

Appellant challenges his conviction in one issue, arguing that the evidence is legally insufficient

to support his conviction because the State failed to disprove that he acted in self-defense when he

stabbed Guy. For the following reasons, we affirm. 1

                           I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         A. Factual background

              (1) The stabbing

         Appellant was Guy’s longtime friend and coworker. Guy had arranged for Appellant to

work with him at a construction firm as a deliveryman. According to Guy’s wife Mayra, Appellant

1
  This case was transferred from our sister court in San Antonio, and we decide it in accordance with the precedent of
that court to the extent required by TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
and Guy “would hang out all the time after work.” On August 18, 2018, Guy was at a baby shower

at a house in San Antonio with his mother Lorena, his brothers Gary and Jack, Mayra, and about

60 other people. Appellant was also at the shower. Guy told Mayra he was not expecting Appellant

at the shower because he thought it was a family-only event, but nobody asked Appellant to leave.

       After the shower, Guy’s family and Appellant went to Lorena’s house to spend more time

together. At approximately 8:00 or 9:00 p.m., Appellant, Guy, and Mayra began drinking alcohol

in the backyard. Although she did not see them smoking marijuana that night, Lorena knew

Appellant and Guy had smoked marijuana together before. Appellant asked if he could spend the

night at Lorena’s house, and she made a bed for him on the floor of an office in the house. Lorena

went to sleep at approximately 2:00 a.m. Guy, Mayra, Jack, and Appellant stayed outside the house

and continued drinking beer together. Mayra drank a 12-pack of beer while Guy, Gary, and

Appellant shared a 24-pack of beer. According to Mayra, the group spent the time playing drinking

games and listening to music.

       At some point, Mayra and Jack noticed that Guy, Gary, and Appellant began talking about

Appellant’s frequent tendency to take time off at work, which caused Guy’s supervisors to criticize

Guy because he had gotten Appellant the job. Gary, who worked at the same company, told

Appellant that he “need[ed] to do better and he [was] making us look bad.” Mayra and Jack recalled

that Guy “wasn’t getting mad at [Appellant] or anything like that” but was “encouraging him to

do better.” Appellant’s tone of voice became “defensive” due to the topic of conversation, but

Guy’s voice remained “normal.” Gary left at around midnight, and Mayra went to sleep at

approximately 3:00 or 4:00 a.m., leaving Guy, Jack, and Appellant outside to continue the

conversation about work. Jack eventually decided to go to sleep and told Appellant and Guy to

stop talking about Appellant’s work ethic because Jack “[didn’t] want nothing to happen.”

                                                2
Appellant and Guy changed the topic. Jack then went inside the house to go to sleep while

Appellant and Guy continued to talk outside.

       Early the next morning, Mayra awakened to banging on the front door of the house. Mayra

opened the door and found Appellant covered in blood. Appellant was shouting for Lorena and

“screaming and saying he made me do it.” When Lorena came into the room, Appellant got on his

knees and told her he was sorry. Mayra asked where Guy was, and Appellant pointed toward the

street. Mayra went outside and found Guy lying face-down in the street covered in blood.

Appellant went inside and began “rolling around” in Lorena’s kitchen and yelling that Guy had

stabbed him in his arm. Appellant was covered in blood, but Lorena did not see any injuries on his

person. Lorena called 911 after Mayra came back inside and told her to do so. At some point,

Appellant ran out of the house and into the driveway as police officers arrived.

            (2) Law-enforcement investigation

                 (a) On-scene investigation

       At 5:21 a.m. on August 19, 2018, a 911 dispatcher received the call from Lorena, who

stated that her son was in the street and unresponsive after being stabbed in the neck. Guy was still

breathing at the time. Lorena handed the phone to Mayra, who attempted to stop the bleeding from

Guy’s neck with a plastic bag, but she told the dispatcher that Guy was unresponsive. Guy’s father-

in-law attempted to perform CPR, but he told the dispatcher that Guy had stopped breathing. Mayra

stated that Appellant was still at the house and had claimed Guy had tried to stab him. Appellant

was crying. Mayra shouted at Appellant, “You didn’t have to stab him, Juan!” Another man

shouted, “You killed him!”

       Police were dispatched to the scene, including Officer Abigail Bass of the San Antonio

Police Department (SAPD). Bass recalled that when she arrived on scene, she placed Appellant in

handcuffs so that EMS could begin to work on Guy. Bass saw that Appellant had non-life-

                                                 3
threatening injuries, which justified Appellant being transported to police headquarters instead of

to a hospital. Appellant was “distressed,” told Bass that “his head was stomped on,” and made

incoherent statements, although he seemed to understand what Bass was saying to him. Bass’s

bodycam footage also showed Appellant sobbing as he told Bass: “I was protecting myself. I didn’t

want this to happen,” “It was self-defense. He was trying to kill me.” “Is he okay?” “Why did you

have to fucking hit me?” “He hit me first. I was just trying to go home. I was just trying to go home

and he got on top of me . . . and he just decided to fucking hit me. Like we’re drunk and whatever,

and he just decided to fucking hit me.” “He stomped on my head.” Guy grabbed the knife from his

pocket. Appellant also admitted he was trying to punch Guy and he kicked him. Bass noted that

Appellant had a “strong odor of intoxicants coming from . . . his person, [and] he had slurred

speech,” which indicated Appellant may have consumed alcohol. Bass saw containers with alcohol

in the backyard. After receiving consent to search the house, Bass and other officers went inside

and found blood on the floors.

       Officer Theo Weathersbee, who also responded to the scene, recalled that Appellant was

covered in blood and had an injury to the back of his head. EMS personnel evaluated Appellant at

the scene and determined that his injuries were not life-threatening and recommended applying

ice. Appellant told Weathersbee the stabbing was an “accident, [and Guy] was trying to take the

knife from him, . . . [and Guy] pushed him down.” Weathersbee also believed Appellant was

intoxicated and recalled that Appellant could not tell him the time or correctly identify the current

United States President. Weathersbee heard Lorena accuse Appellant of stabbing Guy in the neck,

and Appellant responded to Lorena that Guy was trying to take the knife from him.

       Officer Yvonne Diaz, another officer at the scene, testified that she photographed blood on

the street in front of the house and on the driveway, front patio, and the floors of the interior rooms

of the house. Diaz found a knife on the street underneath a police vehicle. She took photographs

                                                  4
of Appellant, who was handcuffed. Appellant appeared to have sustained several injuries to his

head and had blood and dirt on his face. According to Diaz, Appellant could not stand unassisted

at the time and was covered “almost head to toe” with blood. Diaz also photographed an overturned

chair and a container with bottles of alcohol on the patio.

                 (b) Appellant’s interview

       Appellant was transported from the scene to police headquarters to be interviewed. By that

point, Weathersbee recalled that Appellant’s mental condition seemed to have improved, but he

still appeared to be inebriated. Detective Mark Duke was assigned to investigate the stabbing, and

he interviewed Appellant at police headquarters. Appellant vomited in the interview room before

the interview began. He was “emotional” and had trouble answering some questions, but Duke

believed Appellant was “okay” physically.

       After Appellant was moved to another room, he told Duke he was “really scared” during

the incident and Guy became “real[ly] violent” and started hitting him. Without being asked,

Appellant stated that Guy had been on top of him and Appellant pushed Guy up. According to

Appellant, Guy was his “best friend” and had “smashed [his] head on the concrete and started

punching [him] in [his] face.” Appellant said his head “really hurts.” Duke noted “road rash” on

Appellant’s shoulder caused by falling to the ground. Appellant apologized to Duke because his

speech was slurred due to a mouth injury Guy caused “when [Appellant] was trying to get away.”

Appellant stated he and Guy got “really drunk” and began complaining to Appellant about his

work. Appellant got tired of it and planned to go home, but Guy “started fighting with [him] and

threw himself on top of [Appellant], and [Appellant] was just trying to get away.” Guy threatened

to kill Appellant, and Appellant “did not want to fucking die.” At this point, Duke read and

explained to Appellant the Miranda warnings, and Appellant stated he understood his rights.

                                                 5
       Appellant explained he worked with Guy, who was a mechanic on handheld tools. Prior to

the stabbing, they had been at a baby shower for Guy’s brother. Guy had consumed “a lot” of

alcohol, and Appellant was “really drunk” and had “blacked out” from drinking alcohol prior to

the stabbing. Appellant also stated he and Guy had consumed marijuana and cocaine. While they

were drinking outside of Guy’s house, Appellant and Guy got into an argument over work. Guy

“got violent” when he and Appellant argued about work because Appellant “slacks off.” Appellant

felt “intimidated,” but not angry, about the way Appellant criticized him.

       Appellant began to “sober up” and said he was going to leave, but Guy “grabbed [him] and

started punching [him] and hitting [him]. [Appellant] tried getting away and tried running to the

street.” Guy started grabbing Appellant by his arms and threw him down and got on top of him.

Guy hit Appellant in the face and slammed his head on the concrete. Duke commented that

Appellant’s face looked swollen, and Appellant stated that it was swollen because Guy had

“slammed [his] head on the concrete [and he] was trying to get away from [Guy.]” Appellant “hit

[Guy] a couple times trying to get [Guy] off of him.” Guy was “angry” during the fight. Appellant

did not believe he could have gotten away from the fight.

       Nevertheless, Appellant managed to get away from Guy, but Guy got on top of Appellant

again and began reaching into Appellant’s pockets. Appellant thought Guy was attempting to get

Appellant’s knife that he used to open boxes at work “to intimidate [him].” Appellant tried to push

Guy off of him. Appellant “thought [Guy] was going to kill [him]” and was “in fear for [his] life

and was trying to get away.” Guy took the knife away from Appellant and raised it above

Appellant. Appellant then tried to get the knife and pushed upwards to get Guy off of him; he did

not know for certain how Guy was stabbed, but Appellant believed Guy could have been stabbed

when he fell on the knife. Appellant recalled being covered in blood and initially believing it was

                                                6
his own blood. After the stabbing, Appellant told Guy’s family what had happened and learned it

was Guy’s blood.

       During a break in the interview, Appellant twice called his mother and told her he had

“gott[en] into some shit” and was unsure if she would ever see him again. Appellant told his mother

that he had gotten into a fight with Guy and tried to get away from him. Appellant explained that

Guy had grabbed his knife and tried to stab him, but Guy ended up stabbing himself.

       In sum, Appellant denied starting the fight with Guy and claimed he attempted to get away

from Guy because he was “in fear for [his] life.” Appellant also claimed that Guy, who was 6’3”

or 6’4”, was larger and stronger than Appellant, who himself is 6’1” and weighs over 300 pounds.

                 (c) Subsequent events

       After being interviewed, Appellant was arrested and transported to the Center for Health

Care Services in San Antonio, which had a grant with SAPD to examine injured prisoners before

they appeared before a magistrate. Fausto Saa, an advanced nurse practitioner, performed a

medical examination of Appellant at 9:45 a.m. for medical clearance prior to his jail transport. Saa

noted that Appellant reported he had been “assaulted by a friend and that he had a swelling to the

back of his head, which is a hematoma to the posterior head. He was complaining of dizziness. He

stated loss of consciousness . . . [and Saa] saw bleeding from both ears.” Saa observed that

Appellant had “abnormal vital signs,” with elevated blood pressure, heart rate, and body

temperature.

       Saa physically evaluated Appellant and found abnormalities in his head, gait, ears, nose,

and throat. Saa wrote in his report that Appellant had a “large hematoma to the posterior occipital

region; bleeding from the right ear canal; follows commands with a staggered delay; positive

horizontal nystagmus; right labial swelling; . . . a staggered gait [, and] positive cervical

tenderness.” Using an audioscope, Saa ruled out the possibility that the blood in Appellant’s right

                                                 7
ear came from another person. Given Appellant’s “staggered delay” (i.e., delay in following Saa’s

commands), Saa suspected Appellant had a possible head injury. A sample of Appellant’s breath

showed his BAC at the time was .072. According to Saa, vomiting is a sign of a concussion. Saa

suspected Appellant’s loss of consciousness was more likely due to a head injury “because of the

size of the hematoma and his nystagmus” and because of Appellant’s relatively low BAC, but Saa

could not rule out alcohol consumption as having contributed to Appellant’s impaired motor

function and nystagmus. Saa did not find evidence of a brain bleed, but based on the possibility

that Appellant had a head injury, Saa did not medically clear Appellant to go to the jail and instead

had him sent to the hospital in a 911 transport. According to a CT scan of Appellant’s brain, Saa

did not believe the wounds were life-threatening. Saa opined that with Appellant’s injuries,

sustaining further blows to the head by having it slammed against pavement could have caused

him to suffer more serious injuries.

       Kimberly Molina, the chief medical examiner for the Bexar County Medical Examiner’s

Office, testified that she reviewed Guy’s autopsy report but did not perform the autopsy herself.

Guy was approximately 6’4” in height and weighed 386 pounds at the time of his autopsy. The

autopsy showed that Guy sustained a stab wound to his face, two stab wounds and one incised

wound (i.e., a wound longer than it is deep) to his neck, two stab wounds and an incised wound on

his back, and an incised wound on his left hand that Molina opined was consistent with being

defensive in nature. Molina opined that the stab wound to the lower part of the right side of Guy’s

neck caused his death by severing a blood vessel that caused him to lose an excessive amount of

blood. Molina stated that Guy’s wounds could be consistent with coming from a source in front of

Guy, but they would not likely be consistent with the decedent holding a knife and being pushed

upward by a person underneath the decedent, which would be “theoretically . . . possible, although

improbable.”

                                                 8
       Testing of Guy’s blood during his autopsy showed the presence of cocaine byproducts and

a blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.117 grams per decaliter. Appellant’s medical records

showed that in addition to alcohol in his system, his blood had the presence of cannabinoid (i.e.,

marijuana) and cocaine. Appellant’s records also showed a perforated eardrum immediately after

the stabbing, and “post-traumatic headache” and “headache daily, lasting a few hours” months

after the stabbing.

        B. Procedural history

       The State of Texas charged Appellant with murder, alleging in separate paragraphs: (1)

Appellant intentionally and knowingly caused Guy’s death by cutting and stabbing him with a

knife; and (2) Appellant, with intent to cause serious bodily injury to Guy, committed an act clearly

dangerous to human life that caused Guy’s death by cutting and stabbing him with a knife.

       At trial, the State conceded that Appellant and Guy engaged in a “scuffle” prior to the

stabbing, that Appellant did not flee the scene after the stabbing, and that Guy’s physical size

“could pose a physical threat to just about anyone.” But according to the State, Appellant asserted

that he did not act in self-defense when he stabbed Guy. In particular, the State argued that

Appellant had “stabbed [Guy] in the back,” that the evidence did not suggest Appellant had a head

injury that could have justified his use of deadly force against Guy, and that Appellant’s differing

versions of events recounted at the scene and in his interview rendered his story not credible. The

State also argued that the evidence suggested Appellant did not sustain sufficiently significant

injuries to justify the use of deadly force that was immediately necessary to prevent his death or

serious bodily injury.

       Appellant’s trial theory was that he acted in self-defense when he stabbed Guy due to his

reasonable use of deadly force that was immediately necessary to protect himself against Guy’s

act of smashing Appellant’s head on the asphalt while Guy was positioned on top of him, which

                                                 9
caused him to suffer injuries to his head and ear and to be mentally incoherent. Appellant argued

that Guy weighed approximately 386 pounds and was physically larger than Appellant, which

tended to make his use of deadly force reasonable. Appellant also argued the medical testimony

showed that because head injuries can be life threatening and the evidence suggested Appellant

had a head injury, he was justified in using deadly force against Guy. Appellant further argued

Guy was intoxicated during the fight and had a history of physical violence against others, both of

which made it more likely that he was the first aggressor in the fight with Appellant. Appellant

conceded that his interview statement to Duke that Guy sustained his injuries by falling on the

knife was inconsistent with the other evidence, but Appellant argued his incoherence caused by

the head injuries caused him to put forth this unreasonable explanation for Guy’s injuries. Finally,

Appellant posited that the pattern of stab wounds over Guy’s body showed a “desperate” attempt

to stop Guy from beating him rather than “targeted” blows suggestive of some premeditated intent

to kill Guy.

       The trial court instructed the jury on self-defense. The jury found Appellant guilty of

murder. During the punishment phase of trial, Appellant requested and received an instruction on

the issue of sudden passion, and the jury affirmatively found that Appellant acted under the

influence of sudden passion when he killed Guy. The jury assessed punishment of nine years’

imprisonment. Appellant filed a motion for new trial and motion in arrest of judgment that were

overruled by operation of law. This appeal followed.

                                       II. DISCUSSION

       In his sole issue, Appellant argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to support his

conviction because the State failed to disprove that he acted in self-defense when he stabbed Guy.

                                                10
        A. Standard of review

       The Fourteenth Amendment’s due-process guarantee requires that legally sufficient

evidence support every conviction. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 315–16 (1979); Brooks

v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). In a legal-sufficiency challenge, we focus

solely on whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, would

permit any rational jury to find the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jackson, 443 U.S. at 318–19; Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 912 (establishing legal sufficiency under

Jackson v. Virginia as the only standard for review of the evidence).

       In employing this standard, we recognize the jury is the sole arbiter of witness credibility

and the weight attached to witness testimony. Metcalf v. State, 597 S.W.3d 847, 855 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2020); Dobbs v. State, 434 S.W.3d 166, 170 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Only the jury acts “to

resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from

basic facts to ultimate facts[.]” Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)

(quoting Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319). In doing so, the jury may choose to believe or disbelieve any

testimony. Lancon v. State, 253 S.W.3d 699, 707 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). “When the record

supports conflicting inferences, we presume that the jury resolved the conflicts in favor of the

verdict, and [ ] defer to that determination.” Dobbs, 434 S.W.3d at 170 (citing Jackson, 443 U.S.

at 319). In conducting a legal-sufficiency review, “[w]e are not to sit as a thirteenth juror

reweighing the evidence or deciding whether we believe the evidence established the element in

contention beyond a reasonable doubt[.]” Blankenship v. State, 780 S.W.2d 198, 207 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1988) (en banc) (emphasis omitted). Instead, “we test the evidence to see if it is at least

conclusive enough for a reasonable factfinder to believe based on the evidence that the element is

established beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Jackson, 443 U.S. at 318).

                                                11
        When a defendant raises a self-defense claim that justifies his use of force, he bears the

burden to produce evidence supporting the defense. Braughton v. State, 569 S.W.3d 592, 608

(Tex. Crim. App. 2018). The burden of production is to “adduce some evidence that would support

a rational finding in his favor on the defensive issue.” Id. Once the defendant produces evidence

supporting the defense, the State bears the burden of persuasion to disprove the raised issues. Id.

The burden of persuasion “is not one that requires the production of evidence; rather it requires

only that the State prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (citation and quotation marks

omitted).

        In a review of the sufficiency of the evidence pertaining to self-defense, we do not look to

whether the State produced evidence refuting the defendant’s claim, “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 would also have found against [A]ppellant on the self-defense issue beyond a reasonable

doubt.” Id at 609. Self-defense is an issue of fact for the jury to decide, and when a jury renders a

finding of guilt, it is implicitly rejecting the defense. Id.

        B. Law of self-defense

        Under Texas 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). “Reasonable

belief” is defined as one that would be held by “an ordinary and prudent man in the same

circumstances as the actor.” Id. § 1.07(a)(42). Use of force is not justified in response to verbal

provocation alone. Id. § 9.31(b)(1).

        A person is justified in using deadly force in self-defense if he would be justified in using

force against another person under § 9.31 and if the person “reasonably believes the deadly force

                                                    12
is immediately necessary . . . to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of

unlawful deadly force . . . [or] to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated

kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.”

Id. § 9.32(a). “Deadly force” is defined as “force that is intended or known by the actor to cause,

or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.”

Id. § 9.01(3).

        C. Analysis

        On appeal, Appellant does not argue that the State failed to prove the elements of murder.

Instead, he contends the State failed to meet its burden to disprove self-defense beyond a

reasonable doubt because he was justified in using deadly force to protect himself against the risk

of death or serious bodily injury caused by Guy. In support of his position, Appellant points to: (1)

Guy’s heavy weight and his position over Appellant while on the street, as shown by Duke’s

testimony that the blood evidence suggested Guy was over Appellant when he was stabbed; (2)

Appellant’s request for medical assistance to help Guy; (3) the lack of evidence showing a

propensity for physical violence on Appellant’s part; and (4) Guy’s history of physical violence

against Mayra.

        Other than Appellant’s claim that Guy started the physical fight, the evidence viewed in

the light most favorable to the verdict suggests that Appellant could have started the physical fight,

especially in light of Mayra and Jack’s testimony that Guy was calm when speaking to Appellant

about his work ethic while Appellant became defensive due to the accusations. Although the record

shows Guy had a history of physical violence and that Appellant did not flee the scene after the

stabbing, the jury was free to weigh this evidence less heavily than Mayra and Jack’s testimony

suggesting Appellant started the fight. It was the jury’s role to determine who started the physical

confrontation between Appellant and Guy. See Lozano v. State, 2019 WL 5616975, at *15 (Tex.

                                                 13
App.—El Paso Oct. 31, 2019, rev’d on other grounds, 636 S.W.3d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021))

(recognizing that it is the jury’s province to determine the identity of the person who started a

confrontation in determining a self-defense claim). Given the evidence, the jury could have chosen

to disbelieve Appellant’s version of events and instead rationally infer Appellant was the initial

aggressor in the physical fight that led to Guy’s stabbing.

       Given that there were no witnesses to the fight other than Appellant, who did not testify,

there is no direct evidence of exactly how the fight progressed. Injuries to Appellant’s head and

shoulder imply that he and Guy physically fought each other at some point after everyone went to

sleep. An overturned chair in the backyard and Duke’s testimony about his investigation suggest

that the fight started in the backyard and moved into the street. Testimony from Duke and Molina

about Appellant being covered in blood established that Appellant was likely underneath Guy at

some point after Guy was stabbed. Moreover, it is undisputed that Guy was physically larger than

Appellant and outweighed him by approximately 60 pounds, which could support Appellant’s

claim that deadly force was immediately necessary to stop Guy from causing him serious bodily

injury or death due to Guy’s large physical size.

       Nevertheless, other than Appellant’s claims at the scene that Guy was smashing his head

into the concrete when he stabbed Guy to protect himself, there is no evidence indicating Guy was

causing Appellant’s injuries, i.e., using potential deadly force, at the precise moment Appellant

used deadly force against Guy, rendering Appellant’s use of deadly force immediately necessary.

In contrast, the evidence suggests that the fight started in the backyard and that Appellant could

have stabbed Guy before he was on top of Appellant in the street. The jury was free to reject

Appellant’s assertions to the contrary and could have rationally found that Appellant was not

justified in his use of deadly force that was “immediately necessary” at the time he stabbed Guy.

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 9.31(a).

                                                14
       Additionally, the jury could have found that due to the number of knife wounds to Guy’s

body, the force Appellant used was not immediately necessary to protect himself against Guy’s

use or attempted use of force, especially given the knife wound to Guy’s hand, which Molina

testified was consistent with being defensive in nature. See Vasquez v. State, 2 S.W.3d 355, 358–

59 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, pet. ref’d) (large number of stab wounds, including multiple

stab wounds to the victim’s back, suggested defendant’s use of deadly force was not immediately

necessary to protect himself against the victim’s use of deadly force). The jury was free to reject

Appellant’s unlikely claim during his interview with Duke that Guy sustained seven stab wounds

to his face, neck, back, and hand by accidentally cutting himself after Appellant pushed up against

him while they were fighting in the street—a claim Molina testified was “improbable” given the

nature of Guy’s wounds. Moreover, given the medical testimony in the record, the jury could have

also concluded that any impairment of Appellant’s mental and physical faculties was due to

Appellant’s alcohol intoxication and not due to the wounds he sustained, thus undermining his

assertion as to the degree of force Guy used.

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

rational jury could have found that the State disproved Appellant’s self-defense claim beyond a

reasonable doubt. Thus, the jury’s implied finding against Appellant on his self-defense claim is

supported by legally sufficient evidence. See Shannon v. State, No. 08-13-00320-CR, 2015 WL

6394922, at *4 (Tex. App.—El Paso Oct. 21, 2015, no pet.) (not designated for publication)

(significant differences between defendant’s versions of the facts allowed the jury to rationally

conclude that the claim was fabricated and reject the claim).

       Accordingly, Appellant’s sole issue is overruled.

                                                15
                                     III. CONCLUSION

       We affirm the judgment supporting Appellant’s conviction.

                                             LISA J. SOTO, Justice

July 21, 2023

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)

                                                 16