Dominquez v. State
| Citation | 532 S.W.2d 95 |
| Decision Date | 04 February 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 50762,50762 |
| Parties | Reynaldo DOMINQUEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Sol Ballas, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Gary Love, Phil Adams and Gerald Banks, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and David S. McAngus, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
KEITH, Commissioner.
Appellant was indicated for murder but the conviction was for voluntary manslaughter and his punishment set by the court at confinement for ten years.
His single ground of error on appeal is that the trial court erred in refusing his requested charge on the right to continue shooting. 1 In reviewing this ground of error we bear in mind the rule of law stated in Boaz v. State, 89 Tex.Cr.R. 515, 231 S.W. 790, 794 (1920):
'The necessity of such a charge in a given case depends upon the facts and the manner in which the issues are submitted to the jury.'
Appellant and Steven Alvarez, the deceased, had been friends for several years. During the early evening of February 15, 1974, appellant accompanied the deceased, the deceased's girl friend, Sarah Williamson, and Macio and Carrie Trevino to a bar in Dallas where the group drank beer and played pool. Shortly before midnight the group left the bar, stopped by a convenience store and purchased two or more six-packs of beer, and went to appellant's apartment in Trevino's car. There the men played dominoes (with Trevino and deceased continuing to drink beer and appellant drinking milk) until around 4 a.m. The women listened to music for a while before Carrie Trevino went to sleep on appellant's bed.
Macio Trevino agreed to drive the deceased and Williamson to their home, intending to return for his wife. Macio and Williamson went down the stairs of appellant's garage apartment and seated themselves in Trevino's car. Then, according to appellant's testimony, deceased declined to leave but finally did so and appellant followed him down the stairs to lock the door as he left. Deceased then began beating and kicking on the door, breaking the wooden frame and the glass, in an effort to regain entry. After deceased had kicked out a part of the door, Trevino and Williamson heard gunshots but neither knew that deceased had been shot until he got into the car and they saw blood. They immediately headed for the hospital and deceased died shortly after arrival at the hospital.
Carrie Trevino said that she was sleeping when she heard gunshots and awoke to see appellant standing outside the bedroom on a balcony overlooking the front door and driveway.
Appellant testified that deceased became angry when appellant refused to leave with the other members of the group; that after he had locked the door at the bottom of the steps, he saw deceased kick out the door and reach for the inside lock through the hole he had made in the door. He testified that he was afraid that the deceased was going to get inside and beat him up again. Appellant fired down the stairs at the deceased but, when the shots did not stop the deceased from trying to get inside, he went through the bedroom door to the balcony and 'shot down on the ground' but 'didn't shoot at him.'
Dr. DiMaio testified that the deceased died of four gunshot wounds penetrating his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Philen v. State
...of when or where the fatal shots were fired, the appellant should be acquitted if he was acting in self-defense. See Dominquez v. State, 532 S.W.2d 95 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). The essence of the requested charge was repetitious in effect of that given in the main charge. When the charge refusal i......
-
Cisneros v. State, s. 04-87-00308-C
...of when or where the fatal shots were fired, the appellant should be acquitted if he was acting in self-defense. See Dominquez v. State, 532 S.W.2d 95 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). The essence of the requested charge was repetitious in effect of that given in the main charge. When the charge refusal i......
-
Stevens v. State
...the same as the charge given by the court. No harm is shown in the refusal of appellant's requested charge. See Dominquez v. State, 532 S.W.2d 95 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Teal v. State, 543 S.W.2d 371 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). The ground of error is overruled. Appellant contends finally that the court e......
-
DeBolt v. State
...that were given by the trial court were substantially the same as those requested by the appellant. No harm is shown. Dominquez v. State, 532 S.W.2d 95 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). The appellant argues that the prosecutor engaged in improper jury argument at several points during the guilt-innocence ......