Reyes Urbina v. Designer Homes Co., Inc., Onesimo Martinez, Javier Villescas [Erroneously Sued as Javier Bilolescas or Billescas], Compass Bank and Gregory S. Kazen, in His Capacity Only as Substitute Trustee

Citation: Not availableDocket: 13-11-00325-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; May 26, 2011; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Rex A. Johnson was convicted of assault, a Class A misdemeanor, and sentenced to thirty days of confinement, probated for one year, along with a $250 fine. Johnson appealed, raising two main issues: the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction and alleged reversible error due to inadequate jury instructions regarding self-defense and defense of property.

During the trial, the State presented testimony from John Louis Stockwell II, the complainant, and Beaumont Police Officer Melanie Dawn Epperly. Stockwell, a repossession agent, recounted an incident on April 8, 2008, when he attempted to repossess a vehicle from Johnson's property. Upon arrival, Stockwell encountered Johnson's brother, Jason, who was unaware of the vehicle. Johnson then confronted Stockwell aggressively, leading to a physical altercation. Stockwell claimed that he was struck by Johnson and Jason, resulting in injuries. Although Stockwell fought back in self-defense, he denied being the initial aggressor. The confrontation ended when Stockwell managed to spray both Johnson and Jason with pepper spray before leaving to report the incident to the police, who later documented his injuries and evidence from the scene.

Police documentation included photographs of Stockwell's injuries to his forehead and nose. Stockwell returned to the appellant’s property with police to retrieve his cell phone but remained in the street while the officer spoke to the appellant, who yelled profanities. The cell phone was not recovered, leading Stockwell to press charges against the appellant for assault. Officer Epperly, responding to the incident, noted injuries on Stockwell, including a significant lump on his forehead and minor facial scratches. The appellant claimed he had been assaulted, reported neck and back pain, but refused EMS assistance. No arrests were made due to lack of witnesses to corroborate Stockwell's claims.

After the State presented its case, the appellant's motion for a directed verdict was denied. The appellant and a witness, Jason, testified that Stockwell had assaulted the appellant and trespassed on his property. The appellant stated he had requested proof of vehicle repossession but received none. He described a physical altercation initiated when Stockwell hit him with a tow truck door and sprayed him with pepper spray. Jason corroborated the struggle, mentioning Stockwell's torn shirt during the fight. The appellant admitted to sustaining bruises and claimed he was unjustly denied charges against Stockwell by the police. Ultimately, the jury convicted the appellant of class A misdemeanor assault, resulting in a thirty-day jail sentence and a $250 fine, which was probated for one year. The appellant's motion for a new trial was overruled, leading to his appeal.

In his appeal, the appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that he acted in self-defense. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals indicated that there is no significant difference between legal and factual sufficiency standards in reviewing evidence for criminal convictions.

The court employs the Jackson standard of review to evaluate evidentiary sufficiency in criminal cases, which requires assessing whether any rational jury could find the essential elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt when viewing evidence favorably for the prosecution. The reviewing court respects the jury's role in resolving testimony conflicts, weighing evidence, and making reasonable inferences. Legal sufficiency is determined based on a hypothetically correct jury charge that accurately reflects the law without overburdening the State's proof requirements. 

In this case, to establish the crime of assault under Texas Penal Code § 22.01, the State needed to demonstrate that the appellant intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly caused bodily injury to another. The Brooks court determined that the standards for legal and factual sufficiency are essentially the same, negating the need for a separate factual sufficiency analysis.

The incident in question involved conflicting testimonies. Stockwell claimed he was repossessing a vehicle when the appellant confronted him with aggression, leading to a physical altercation that resulted in injuries to Stockwell. Conversely, the appellant asserted that Stockwell trespassed, acted calmly, and sprayed him with pepper spray first, prompting him to defend himself. The contrasting accounts highlight the contested nature of the facts surrounding the incident.

Appellant acknowledged being physically assaulted and sustaining bruises during a fight with Stockwell, claiming that Stockwell was the aggressor. Despite his attempts to file charges against Stockwell, no charges were pursued. The jury faced conflicting testimonies regarding the altercation, with the law stating that they are the sole judges of the facts and witness credibility. The jury was instructed on self-defense, specifically that they should acquit appellant if they believed Stockwell was the initial aggressor and that appellant's use of force was justified. Under Texas law, a person may use force if they reasonably believe it is necessary to protect themselves against unlawful force. However, the use of force is not justified if the actor abandons the encounter. The determination of self-defense is factual and rests with the jury, which has the burden of persuasion to disprove self-defense claims. The jury ultimately believed Stockwell’s account, leading to appellant's conviction for assault. The evidence was viewed favorably towards the prosecution, affirming the jury's decision. Consequently, the court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction and overruled appellant's appeal.

The appellant argues that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the defenses of property, defense of third-party property, and relevant self-defense presumptions. The State responds that the jury was adequately instructed on self-defense and that any errors were not preserved for appeal. Additionally, the State maintains that the appellant's claims regarding the other defenses lack merit due to insufficient evidence presented at trial to warrant such instructions.

According to Texas law, a jury charge on a defensive issue is required if the defendant provides affirmative evidence supporting the defense and makes a proper request for such a charge. The defendant must distinctly specify objections to the charge as per Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and a sufficiently specific request can preserve error for appeal. Evidence that raises a defense must be considered favorably towards the defense, regardless of its strength or source.

In this case, the jury was instructed on self-defense, which allows an individual to use force when reasonably believing it is necessary to protect themselves from unlawful force. The instruction clarifies that there is no duty to retreat and that a person may defend against apparent threats as long as their belief in the necessity of force is reasonable. The law justifies the use of force based on the individual's perspective at the time of the incident, even in the absence of an actual or attempted attack.

The jury was instructed that if they found beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant REX A. JOHNSON intentionally caused bodily injury to Complainant JOHN STOCKWELL, II by striking him, they must also consider whether Johnson reasonably believed he was in danger of bodily injury from Stockwell's actions. If such belief existed, they should acquit Johnson or give him the benefit of the doubt if unsure about the self-defense claim. No instructions were provided on defense of property or third-party defense, and the appellant admitted his trial counsel did not request these instructions or object to their omission. The court concluded it had no duty to instruct on these issues absent a request, referencing previous rulings that require timely objections or requests to preserve such issues for appeal. The appellant's argument for egregious harm based on the absence of these instructions was rejected, as the court found no error in the jury charge. 

Regarding the self-defense instruction, the appellant claimed it was incomplete for not stating he had a “reasonable belief” about the necessity of force. This argument was deemed meritless since the jury charge adequately included the legal standard for self-defense, tracking the statutory language of the Texas Penal Code. The court affirmed that adhering to statutory language in jury instructions is proper, thereby overruling the appellant's claims and affirming the trial court's judgment.