Mitchell v. State

10 Citing cases

  1. Carriere v. State

    No. 01-23-00071-CR (Tex. App. Apr. 4, 2024)

    Rankin, 617 S.W.3d at 182 (internal citations omitted); Mitchell v. State, 590 S.W.3d 597, 604 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.). Because self-defense is a fact issue to be determined by the jury, the jury may accept or reject any defensive evidence on the issue.

  2. Bernard v. State

    No. 01-22-00877-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 9, 2024)

    Under the Jackson v. Virginia standard, we defer to the jury to "fairly resolve conflicts in testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts." Rankin, 617 S.W.3d at 182 (internal citations omitted); Mitchell v. State, 590 S.W.3d 597, 604 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.); see also Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 15-16 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)

  3. Silvers v. State

    No. 05-20-00182-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 2, 2021)

    Further, the reviewing court must defer to the jury's determinations of the witnesses' credibility and the weight to be given their testimony, as the jury is the sole judge of such matters. Mitchell v. State, 590 S.W.3d 597, 604 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.). We must likewise be mindful that self-defense is a fact issue to be determined by the jury, and it is free to accept or reject any defensive evidence on the issue.

  4. Mitchell v. Lumpkin

    CIVIL ACTION NO. H-20-3619 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2020)   Cited 3 times

    That conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. See Mitchell v. State of Texas, 590 S.W.3d 597 (Tex. App. - Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 22, 2019, no pet.). Mitchell did not appeal further by filing a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and he has not pursued state habeas corpus review or any other collateral proceeding to challenge the conviction.

  5. Hernandez v. State

    No. 14-23-00292-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 23, 2024)

    (second internal quotation omitted)); see also Rankin v. State, 617 S.W.3d 169, 183 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet. ref'd); Mitchell v. State, 590 S.W.3d 597, 604-05 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.); Bundy v. State, 280 S.W.3d 425, 435 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2009, pet. ref'd).

  6. Smith v. State

    No. 05-22-00491-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 30, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    We must defer to the jury's determinations of the witnesses' credibility and the weight to be given to their testimony, as the jury is the sole judge of such matters. Mitchell v. State, 590 S.W.3d 597, 604 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.) (internal citations omitted).

  7. Wilson v. State

    No. 10-22-00370-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 23, 2023)

    The reviewing court must defer to the jury's determinations of the witnesses' credibility and the weight to be given to their testimony, as the jury is the sole judge of such matters. Mitchell v. State, 590 S.W.3d 597, 604 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.) (internal citations omitted).

  8. Green v. State

    No. 11-21-00254-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 17, 2023)   Cited 1 times
    Holding that the appellant who shot her unarmed, sexually abusive stepfather was not entitled to a self-defense instruction because the stepfather posed no immediate threat at the time of the shooting

    Witty v. State, 203 S.W.2d 212, 218 (Tex. Crim. App. 1947); Wilcox v. State, No. 06-22-00100-CR, 2023 WL 2546504, at *4 (Tex. App.-Texarkana Mar. 17, 2023, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see also Mitchell v. State, 590 S.W.3d 597, 604-05 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.) (defendant was not entitled to use deadly force when an unarmed aggressor let defendant go before defendant picked up a gun and fired at the victim); Sanchez v. State, 418 S.W.3d 302, 310 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2013, pet. ref'd) (defendant "acted out of anger, not protective instinct, in pursuing the unarmed [complainant]"); Wilson v. State, No. 01-17-00788-CR, 2019 WL 346892, at *3 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 29, 2019, pet. ref'd)

  9. Wilcox v. State

    No. 06-22-00100-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 17, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    See Graves v. State, 452 S.W.3d 907, 911 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2014, pet. ref'd) (finding self-defense instruction not warranted when initial aggressor was unarmed and was shot while backing away from defendant); Mitchell v. State, 590 S.W.3d 597, 605 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.) (collecting cases).

  10. Rankin v. State

    617 S.W.3d 169 (Tex. App. 2020)   Cited 21 times

    From Rankin's own testimony, a rational jury could have therefore concluded that deadly force was not immediately necessary for Rankin to defend herself from an unarmed man. Mitchell v. State , 590 S.W.3d 597, 604–05 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.) (defendant not entitled to use deadly force when unarmed aggressor let defendant go before defendant picked up a gun and fired at victim); Sanchez v. State , 418 S.W.3d 302, 310 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013, pet. ref'd) (defendant "acted out of anger, not protective instinct, in pursuing the unarmed [complainant]"); Wilson v. State , No. 01-17-00788-CR, 2019 WL 346892, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 29, 2019, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (no evidence of self-defense when defendant shot man who stepped back and threw his hands up after wrestling with defendant). The State presented evidence supporting the jury's rejection of Rankin's self-defense claim.