Sec. 19.02. MURDER.
(b) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;
(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.
(a)
(1) “Adequate cause” means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.
She did intentionally pull her gun and put a fatal bullet into him while he was in his own apartment minding his own business. Was she reasonably enraged or terrorized to see him there? Sounds like that comes into play at sentencing.
Everyone defending or at least mitigating her actions are bent on the word “intentionally”, but fail to read the next word “ knowingly”....
The charge is Murder, not Murder1, right? Big difference- Murder 1 in TX and most other states requires forethought/premeditation.
Did she premediate the act? Probably not unless there is some other interesting evidence, but did she intentionally shoot the victim? Did she knowingly shoot the victim? Unless her sidearm fell out of her holster and discharged while out of her hands, or she thought the figure she saw was a shoot house simu-target, she did both. She may have unwittingly entered the wrong apartment ( who espc. a cop, enters their home if the door is ajar? Well, I live in a rural area, so yes, I would “clear my home too”, most likely, but it would BE MY HOME, MY CASTLE).
So, she killed Mr. Jean by intentionally and knowingly shooting him twice with her sidearm. Convicted? We shall see.
Mitigating? TX law allows for both extenuation and mitigation by virtue of “mistake of fact” ( but the jury will have to be convicted that her mistaken entry into HIS apartment was a reasonable mistake to make) and that her actions were out of “passion” of the moment, both can reduce the action to murder or even criminal negligence, but her defense cannot be simply she did not intend to kill Mr. Jean.
She intentionally entered the wrong apartment ( even if by mistake of fact), and she intentionally and knowingly drew, aimed and shot the dead lawfully present resident. She had no lawful right to be where she was and therefore she has no defense by self defense etc.
But, we all shall see how the good people of TX on the jury see the facts.