I disagree in part. I think she clearly kidnapped the guy.
In the Texas Penal Code, a person commits kidnapping if he: "Intentionally or knowingly abducts another person."
The Penal Code defines 'abduct':
"Abduct" means to restrain a person with intent to prevent his liberation by:
(A) secreting or holding him in a place where he is not likely to be found; or
...
It defines 'restrain':
"Restrain means to restrict a person's movements without consent, so as to interfere substantially with the person's liberty, by moving the person from one place to another or by confining the person."
She restrained him to prevent his liberation - because had she not done so she would have 'gotten in trouble' for hitting him in the first place. She clearly continued on her way, deliberately, in order to avoid apprehension. Actually, that fact alone makes it aggravated kidnapping (two felony degrees higher than simple 'kidnapping'). I don't think it's fair to say that she didn't restrain him - she put him in a position where he could not free himself (by hitting him) and then refused to extricate him from that situation. That in my mind is restraining him.
The kidnapping combined with the murder makes it capital murder. I am positive you could sell a jury on capital murder, but perhaps not the death penalty. A conviction where the state doesn't seek the death penalty carries a mandatory life sentence. In contrast, first degree murder can be punished by as few as 5 years in prison.
-bc
I think they are going to face some challenge proving that it was even murder. It's easily manslaughter, but proving that she actually intended that the victim die is not a slam dunk.
Everything in this story indicates that this jerk simply didn't want to deal with the situation, and if you can jack up the mens rea to that necessary for capital murder from this set of facts, you're one hell of a prosecutor.
The best thing going for the prosecution is that the conduct is outrageous, and a jury isn't going to be very sympathetic to her in any event.