Presumptive Jury Charge
Actual Jury Charge from Murder Case in Trinity County
CAUSE NO. 11,273
STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
VS. § TRINITY COUNTY, TEXAS
ROBERT LEE MARZE § 411TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
____________________________________________________________________________
CHARGE OF THE COURT
____________________________________________________________________________
JURY INSTRUCTIONS MEMBERS OF THE JURY:
The Defendant stands charged by indictment with the offense of Murder, alleged to have occurred in Trinity County, Texas, on or about July 31, 2020. To this charge the Defendant has pleaded not guilty.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
The Indictment
The "indictment" is not evidence of guilt. It is the name of a document required to bring the case before you. The indictment cannot be considered in any way by the jury. Do not consider the fact that the Defendant has been arrested, confined, or otherwise charged. You may not draw any inference of guilt from any of these circumstances.
Presumption of Innocence
The Defendant is presumed innocent of the charge. All persons are presumed to be innocent, and no person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of the offense is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that a person had been arrested, confined, or indicted for, or otherwise charged with, the offense gives rise to no inference of guilt at his trial. The law does not require a defendant to prove his or her innocence or produce any evidence at all. Unless the jurors are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the Defendant's guilt after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case, the presumption of innocence alone is sufficient to acquit the Defendant.
Burden of Proof
The burden of proof throughout the trial is always on the State. The Defendant does not have the burden to prove anything. The State must prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt to establish guilt for the offense. The State does not need to prove these things beyond all possible doubt; it is only required to present proof that excludes all reasonable doubt.
If the state does not prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, or if you have a reasonable doubt about whether the Defendant is guilty after considering the evidence and these instructions, you must find the Defendant not guilty.
Jury as Fact Finder
As the jurors, you review the evidence and determine the facts and what they prove. You are the exclusive judges of the facts proved, of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony but the law you must receive in
these instructions and be governed thereby.
Evidence
The evidence consists of the testimony and exhibits admitted in the trial. You must not consider, discuss, or mention anything that is not evidence in the trial. You must not consider or mention any personal knowledge or information you may have about any fact or person connected with this case that is not evidence in the trial.
Statements made by the lawyers are not evidence. The questions asked by the attorneys are not evidence. Evidence consists of the testimony of the witnesses and materials admitted into evidence.
You should give terms their common meanings, unless you have been told in these instructions that the terms are given special meanings. In that case, of course, you should give those terms the meanings provided in these instructions.
You are to render a fair and impartial verdict based on the evidence admitted in the case under the law that is in these instructions.
Notetaking Instruction
You have been permitted to take notes during the testimony in this case. In the event any of you took notes, you may rely on your notes during your deliberations. However, you may not share your notes with the other jurors and you should not permit the other jurors to share their notes with you. You shall not use your notes as authority to persuade your fellow jurors. In your deliberations, give no more and no less weight to the views of a fellow juror just because that juror did or did not take notes. Your notes are not official transcripts. They are personal memory aids, just like the notes of the judge and the notes of the lawyers. Notes are valuable as a stimulant to your memory. On the other hand, you might make an error in observing, and you might make a mistake in recording what you have seen or heard. Therefore, you are not to use your notes as authority to persuade fellow jurors of what the evidence was during trial.
Occasionally, during jury deliberations, a dispute arises as to the testimony presented. If this should occur in this case, you shall inform the Court and request that portion of the disputed testimony be read to you from the official transcript. You shall not rely on your notes to resolve the dispute because those notes, if any, are not official transcripts. The dispute must be settled by the official transcript, for it is the official transcript rather than any juror's notes upon which you must base your· deliberation of the facts and ultimately your verdict in this case.
Testimony
Specific testimony may be read back to you by the court reporter if you request. You must follow these rules to request that testimony be read back to you. The court will allow testimony to be read back to the jury only if the jury, in a writing signed by the foreperson: (1) states that it is requesting that testimony be read back;
(2) states that it has a disagreement about a specific statement of a witness or a particular point in dispute; and (3) identifies the name of the witness who made the statement. The court will then have the court reporter read back only that part of the statement that is in disagreement.
You are instructed that if there is any testimony before you in this case regarding the Defendant having committed crimes or acts other than the offense alleged against him in the indictment in this case, you cannot consider said testimony for any purpose unless you find and believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed such other crimes, if any were committed, and even then you may only consider the same in determining the motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident of the Defendant, if any, in connection with the offense, if any, alleged against him in the indictment and for no other purpose.
Foreperson
After you retire to the jury room following the arguments of counsel, you should select one of your members as your foreperson. It is his or her duty to preside at your deliberations, vote with you, and when you have unanimously agreed upon a verdict, to certify to your verdict by using the appropriate form attached hereto and signing the same as foreperson.
DELIBERATIONS
While deliberating, and until excused by the trial court, all jurors must follow these instructions:
1. You must not discuss this case with any court officer, or the attorneys, or anyone not on the jury.
2. You must not discuss this case unless all of you are present in the jury room. If anyone leaves the room, then you must stop your discussions about the case until all of you are present again.
3. You must communicate with the judge only in writing, signed by the foreperson, and given to the judge through the bailiff.
4. You must not conduct any independent investigations, research, or experiments.
5. You must not consider nor mention any personal knowledge or information you may have about any fact or person/witness
connected with this case which is not shown by the evidence.
6. You must tell the judge if anyone attempts to contact you about the case before you reach your verdict.
THE LAW ON MURDER
Our law provides that a person commits the offense of Murder if he intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual; or if he intends to cause serious bodily injury and intentionally or knowingly commits and act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.
You are instructed that you may consider all relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the death, if any, and the previous relationship existing between the accused and the deceased, together with all relevant facts and circumstances going to show the condition of the mind of the accused at the time of the offense, if any. Definitions
The following definitions apply in regards to the law of Murder. The definition of a term applies to each grammatical variation of the term.
A person acts "intentionally," or with intent, with respect to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to cause the result.
A person acts "knowingly," or with knowledge with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.
• An "Act" means a bodily movement, whether voluntary or involuntary, and includes speech.
"Deadly weapon" means a firearm or anything manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury; or anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.
• "Bodily injury" means physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.
"Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.
APPLYING THE LAW ON MURDER TO THIS CASE
Now, bearing in mind the foregoing definitions and instructions, Now, if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about July 31ST, 2020, in Trinity County, Texas, the Defendant, Robert Lee Marze, did then and there intentionally or knowingly cause the death of James Brown, by shooting James Brown with a deadly weapon, namely, a firearm; or
If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about July 31, 2020, in Trinity County, Texas, the Defendant, Robert Lee Marze, did then and there intend to cause serious bodily injury to James Brown by intentionally or knowingly committing an act clearly dangerous to human life, namely, by shooting James Brown with a deadly weapon, namely, a firearm, then you will next consider whether the Defendant's conduct was justified under the law on self-defense.
If you do not so find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, or if you have a reasonable doubt thereof, you will acquit the Defendant and say by your verdict, "not guilty."
Self-Defense
A person’s use of deadly force against another that constitutes the crime of murder is justified by self-defense when the person reasonably believed the degree of force used was immediately necessary to protect the person against the other’s use [or attempted use] of unlawful deadly force.
Self-defense does not cover conduct in response to verbal provocation alone. The defendant must have reasonably believed the other person had done more than verbally provoke the defendant.
Burden of Proof
The defendant is not required to prove self-defense. Rather, the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that self-defense does not apply to the defendant’s conduct.
Definitions
Reasonable Belief
“Reasonable belief” means a belief that an ordinary and prudent person would have held in the same circumstances as the defendant.
Deadly Force
“Deadly force” means force that is intended or known by the person using it to cause death or serious bodily injury or force that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.
OWNER
“Owner” means a person who:
(A) has title to the property, possession of the property, whether lawful or not, or a greater right to possession of the property than the actor; or
(B) is a holder in due course of a negotiable instrument.
Failure to Retreat
A person who has a right to be present at a location where the person uses deadly force against another is not required to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense if the person with the right to be present did not provoke the person against whom the deadly force is used;
Therefore, in deciding whether the state has proved that the defendant did not reasonably believe his use of deadly force was necessary, you must not consider any failure of the defendant to retreat that might be shown by the evidence if you find the defendant, Robert Marze, did not provoke James Brown, the person against whom the defendant used deadly force; and
Only if you find, beyond reasonable doubt, provocation, you may consider any failure of the defendant to retreat that might be shown by the evidence in deciding whether the defendant reasonably believed his use of deadly force was necessary.
Robbery
A person commits robbery if, in the course of committing theft and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, the person either—
intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or
intentionally or knowingly places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.
Theft
“Theft” means to unlawfully appropriate property with intent to deprive the owner of the property.
Presumptive Self-Defense
Under certain circumstances, the law creates a presumption that the defendant’s belief—that the deadly force he used was immediately necessary—was reasonable. A presumption is a conclusion the law requires you to reach if certain other facts exist.
Therefore, you are instructed to find the defendant’s belief—that the deadly force he used was immediately necessary—was reasonable unless you find the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, all of the following elements. The elements are that—
the defendant, Robert Marze did not know or did not have a reason to believe that —
James Brown unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the defendant’s, Robert Marze’s occupied vehicle; or
James Brown unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the defendant, Robert Marze, from the defendant, Robert Marze’s, vehicle; OR
James Brown was committing or attempting to commit robbery.
If you find the state has proved elements 1 a, b, and c listed above, the presumption does not apply and you are not required to find that the defendant’s belief was reasonable. If the State has failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, any of the elements (1 a, b, or c), then you are instructed that you must find the defendant, Robert Marze’s belief was reasonable.
If the state has failed to prove any of elements 1 a, b, or c listed above, you must then determine whether the state has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Defendant, Robert Marze, provoked James Brown by proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, the following elements:
1. that the defendant did some act or used some words that provoked the attack on him,
2. that such act or words were reasonably calculated to provoke the attack, and
3. that the act was done, or the words were used, for the purpose and with the intent that the defendant would have a pretext for inflicting harm upon the other.
If the state has failed to prove provocation by the Defendant, then the presumption that the Defendant’s actions were reasonable and immediately necessary still applies and you are instructed to find the Defendant “Not Guilty.”
Whether or not the presumption applies, the state must still prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that self-defense does not apply to this case.
Application of Law to Facts
If the State has proven the elements necessary to defeat the presumptive defenses, then you are to consider Self-Defense. To decide the issue of self-defense, you must determine whether the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, one of the following two elements. The elements are that—
the defendant did not believe his use of force was immediately necessary to protect himself against James Brown’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
the defendant’s belief was not reasonable.
You must all agree that the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, either element 1 or 2 listed above. You need not agree on which of these elements the state has proved.
If you find that the state has failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, either element 1 or 2 listed above, you must find the defendant “not guilty.”
If you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the elements of the offense of, and you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, either element 1 or 2 listed above, you must find the defendant “guilty.”
Application of Law to Facts Presumption
Under certain circumstances, the law creates a presumption that the defendant’s belief—that the deadly force he used was immediately necessary—was reasonable. A presumption is a conclusion the law requires you to reach if certain other facts exist.
Therefore, you are instructed to find the defendant’s belief—that the deadly force he used was immediately necessary—was reasonable unless you find the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, all of the following elements. The elements are that—
the defendant, Robert Marze did not know or did not have a reason to believe that —
James Brown unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the defendant’s, Robert Marze’s occupied vehicle; or
James Brown unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the defendant, Robert Marze, from the defendant, Robert Marze’s, vehicle; OR
James Brown was committing or attempting to commit robbery.
If you find, beyond a reasonable doubt, the state has proved elements 1 a, b, and c listed above, the presumption does not apply and you are not required to find that the defendant’s belief was reasonable. If the State has failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, any of the elements (1 a, b, or c), then you are instructed that you must find the defendant, Robert Marze’s belief was reasonable.
If the state has failed to prove any of elements 1 a, b, or c listed above, you must then determine whether the state has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Defendant, Robert Marze, provoked James Brown by proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, the following elements:
1. that the defendant did some act or used some words that provoked the attack on him,
2. that such act or words were reasonably calculated to provoke the attack, and
3. that the act was done, or the words were used, for the purpose and with the intent that the defendant would have a pretext for inflicting harm upon the other.
If the state has failed to prove provocation by the Defendant, then the presumption that the Defendant’s actions were reasonable and immediately necessary still applies and you are instructed to find the Defendant “Not Guilty.”
__________________________________
JUDGE PRESIDING
CAUSE NO. 11,273
STATE OF TEXAS
§
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
VS.
§
TRINITY COUNTY, TEXAS
ROBERT LEE MARZE
§
411TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
VERDICT SHEET
WE, THE JURY, find the defendant ROBERT LEE MARZE, GUILTY of the offense of MURDER, as alleged in the indictment.
_______________________________
Foreperson
_______________________________
Printed Name of Foreperson
Or
WE, THE JURY, find the defendant ROBERT LEE MARZE, NOT GUILTY of the offense of MURDER, as alleged in the indictment.
_______________________________
Foreperson
_______________________________
Printed Name of Foreperson