![]() ![]() ![]() Evidence that is subject to a credibility assessment is not considered because it is within the jury’s province to disregard that evidence. ![]() If we find no evidence to support the jury’s rejection of Appellant’s affirmative defense, we look to whether Appellant established, as a matter of law, the elements of his affirmative defense. We review the 2 evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and we credit any favorable evidence if a reasonable factfinder could and disregard any contrary evidence unless a reasonable factfinder could not. We first look to whether there is more than a scintilla of evidence to support the jury’s rejection of Appellant’s affirmative defense. In a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support a rejection of an affirmative defense, we use the standards for review expressed by the Supreme Court of Texas in City of Keller v. Appellant bore the burden to prove his affirmative defense of insanity by a preponderance of the evidence. “he question for deciding insanity is this: Does the defendant factually know that society considers this conduct against the law, even though the defendant, due to his mental disease or defect, may think that the conduct is morally justified?” Id. The Court of Criminal Appeals has defined “wrong” in this context to mean “illegal.” Ruffin v. Section 8.01 of the Texas Penal Code provides: “It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that, at the time of the conduct charged, the actor, as a result of severe mental disease or defect, did not know that his conduct was wrong.” PENAL § 8.01(a) (West 2011). We take Appellant’s first point of error to be a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s rejection of Appellant’s affirmative defense of insanity. Finally, in his third issue, Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it overruled his motion for a mistrial. Appellant maintains in his second point of error that the trial court erred when it denied Appellant’s motion to suppress statements that he made to Texas Ranger Danny Briley. In his first point of error, he asserts that the jury’s verdict was improper because Appellant did not know that his conduct was wrong. Appellant challenges his conviction in three points of error. Therefore, the trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at confinement for life without parole and sentenced him accordingly. The State did not seek the death penalty. CR14024 OPINION The jury rejected Eddie Ray Routh’s insanity defense and convicted him of capital murder for the murders of Christopher Scott Kyle and Chad Hutson Littlefield. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 266th District Court Erath County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. Opinion filed MaIn The Eleventh Court of Appeals _ No. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |