Ray Canek Vera v. The State of Texas

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, affirmed Ray Canek Vera’s convictions for murder and two aggravated assaults. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding forensic psychologist testimony concerning the fight-or-flight response and alcohol, and did not err by refusing to instruct the jury on sudden passion at punishment. The opinion concludes that the evidence did not minimally support adequate cause for a sudden-passion instruction.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the defense expert's proposed testimony because the proffer combined testimony about alcohol's effects with fight-or-flight testimony, and Vera did not segregate and separately offer any potentially admissible portion. Under Texas law, expert testimony about voluntary intoxication offered to negate mens rea is inadmissible.
2. The trial court did not err by refusing to submit a sudden-passion instruction because the evidence did not minimally support an inference that Vera's passion was induced by adequate cause—provocation sufficient to render a person of ordinary temper incapable of cool reflection.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the defense forensic psychologist's proposed testimony regarding the fight-or-flight response and alcohol's effects on cognition as it related to Vera's mens rea.
2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury at the punishment stage on sudden passion.

Disposition

affirmed