evidence supporting defense in Texas

2021A. Error “If a defense is supported by the evidence, then the defendant is entitled to an instruction on that defense, even if the evidence supporting the defense is weak or contradicted, and even if the trial court is of the opinion that the evidence is not credible.” Shaw v. State, 243 S.W.3d 647, 658 (Tex. Crim.

2018"If a defense is supported by the evidence, then the defendant is entitled to an instruction on that defense, even if the evidence supporting the defense is weak or contradicted, and even if the trial court is of the opinion that the evidence is not credible." Id. at 658 .

2024See Lowry v. Tarbox, 537 S.W.3d 599, 620 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017, pet. denied) (“When appellants fail to discuss the evidence supporting their claim or apply the law to the facts, they present nothing for review.”); Dunn v. Bank-Tec South, 134 S.W.3d 315, 328 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, no pet.) (explaining it is not appellate court’s duty to search for evidence that supports a party’s contention in a multi-volume trial record).

2023“When appellants fail to discuss the evidence supporting their claim or apply the law to the facts, they present nothing for review.” Lowry, 537 S.W.3d at 620 .

2023Nevertheless, the evidence supporting an instruction on a lesser-included offense “must still be directly germane to the lesser-included offense[.]” Cavazos, 382 S.W.3d at 385 ; see also Hampton v. State, 109 S.W.3d 437, 441 (Tex. Crim.

2018Nonetheless, the evidence supporting an instruction on a lesser offense “must still be directly germane to the lesser-included offense[.]” Cavazos, 382 S.W.3d at 385 ; see also Hampton v. State, 109 S.W.3d 437, 441 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003).

2016See Rocha v. State, 16 S.W.3d 1 , 20 (Tex. Crim.

2015See id.

2015Shaw, 243 S.W.3d at 657–58 (citing Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 2.03 (West 2011)); see Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204, 209 (Tex. Crim.

2015Shaw, 243 S.W.3d at 657– 58 (citing Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 2.03 (West 2011)); see Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204, 209 (Tex. Crim.

2006See Zuniga v. State , 144 S.W.3d 477 , 484 B 85 (Tex. Crim.

2006See Zuniga, 144 S.W.3d at 484-85 ; Zuliani v. State , 97 S.W.3d 589, 595 (Tex. Crim.

2019Elizondo v. State, 487 S.W.3d 185, 196 (Tex. Crim.

2018Elizondo v. State, 487 S.W.3d 185, 196 (Tex. Crim.

2018P. 38.1(i) (requiring “clear and concise argument for the contentions made”); Lowry v. Tarbox, 537 S.W.3d 599, 620 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017, pet. denied) (“When appellants fail to discuss the evidence supporting their claim or apply the law to the facts, they present nothing for review.”); Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P. v. Vogt, 373 S.W.3d 57, 75 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.) (“A failure to provide substantive analysis of an issue waives the complaint.”).

2018P. 38.1(i) (requiring “clear and concise argument for the contentions made”); Lowry v. Tarbox, 537 S.W.3d 599, 620 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017, pet. denied) (“When appellants fail to discuss the evidence supporting their claim or apply the law to the facts, they present nothing for review.”); Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P. v. Vogt, 373 S.W.3d 57, 75 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.) (“A failure to provide substantive analysis of an issue waives the complaint.”).

2015If a defense is supported by the 3 evidence, then the defendant is entitled to an instruction on that defense, even if the evidence supporting the defense is weak or contradicted, and even if the trial court is of the opinion that the evidence is not credible. e.g., Arnold v. State, 742 S.W.2d 10, 13 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987).

2015If a defense is supported by the 91 evidence, then the defendant is entitled to an instruction on that defense, even if the evidence supporting the defense is weak or contradicted, and even if the trial court is of the opinion that the evidence is not credible. e.g., Arnold v. State, 742 S.W.2d 10, 13 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987).

2015Sands v. State, 64 S.W.3d 488, 494 (Tex.App.— Texarkana 2001, no pet.); see also Durden v. State, 290 S.W.3d 413, 419 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2009, no pet.) (That the evidence supporting mistake of fact defense “might have been seen by the trial court or the jury as feeble, contra- dicted, impeached, or incredible” does not undermine a defendant’s “entitlement to a defensive instruction.”).

2015Sands v. State, 64 S.W.3d 488, 494 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2001, no pet.); see also Durden v. State, 290 S.W.3d 413, 419 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2009, no pet.) (That the evidence supporting mistake 12 of fact defense “might have been seen by the trial court or the jury as feeble, contradicted, impeached, or incredible” does not undermine a defendant’s “entitlement to a defensive instruction.”).

2015Sands v. State, 64 S.W.3d 488, 494 (Tex.App.— Texarkana 2001, no pet.); see also Durden v. State, 290 S.W.3d 413, 419 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2009, no pet.) (That the evidence supporting mistake of fact defense “might have been seen by the trial court or the jury as feeble, contra- dicted, impeached, or incredible” does not undermine a defendant’s “entitlement to a defensive instruction.”).

2015Sands v. State, 64 S.W.3d 488, 494 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2001, no pet.); see also Durden v. State, 290 S.W.3d 413, 419 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2009, no pet.) (That the evidence supporting mistake 12 of fact defense “might have been seen by the trial court or the jury as feeble, contradicted, impeached, or incredible” does not undermine a defendant’s “entitlement to a defensive instruction.”).

2009See $56,700 in U.S. Currency, 730 S.W.2d at 661 .

2009See $56,700 in U.S. Currency, 730 S.W.2d at 661 .

2003See Elizondo , 947 S.W.2d at 208-09.

2003See Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d at 208-09.

2023Nevertheless, the evidence supporting an instruction on a lesser-included offense “must still be directly germane to the lesser-included offense[.]” Cavazos, 382 S.W.3d at 385 ; see also Hampton v. State, 109 S.W.3d 437, 441 (Tex. Crim.

2020Nevertheless, the evidence supporting an instruction on a lesser-included offense “must still be directly germane to the lesser- included offense[.]” Cavazos, 382 S.W.3d at 385 (recognizing that evidence must be “directly germane” to lesser-included offense before an instruction on a lesser-included offense is warranted).

2016Id. at 228 .

2016Id. at 228 .

2006See Zuniga, 144 S.W.3d at 484-85 ; Zuliani v. State , 97 S.W.3d 589, 595 (Tex. Crim.

2006See Zuniga , 144 S.W.3d at 484 B 85; Zuliani , 97 S.W.3d at 595 ; see also Roy v. State , 161 S.W.3d 30 , 36 B 37 (Tex. App. C Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (harmonizing articulation of standards in Zuniga and Zuliani ).

2024See Lowry v. Tarbox, 537 S.W.3d 599, 620 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017, pet. denied) (“When appellants fail to discuss the evidence supporting their claim or apply the law to the facts, they present nothing for review.”); Dunn v. Bank-Tec South, 134 S.W.3d 315, 328 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, no pet.) (explaining it is not appellate court’s duty to search for evidence that supports a party’s contention in a multi-volume trial record).

2023See id.

2023App. 2003)); see also Wheeler v. Methodist Hosp., 95 S.W.3d 628, 646 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (holding appellate issue was waived when brief did “little more than summarily state [appellant’s] point of error, without citations to legal authority or substantive analysis”); San Saba Energy, L.P. v. Crawford, 171 S.W.3d 323, 338 (Tex. App. —Houston [14th Dist.] 15 2005, no pet.) (holding that “parties asserting error on appeal still must put forth some specific argument and analysis showing that the record and the law supports their contentions”); Lowry v. Tarbox, 537 S.W.3d

2023App. 2003)); see also Wheeler v. Methodist Hosp., 95 S.W.3d 628, 646 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (holding appellate issue was waived when brief did “little more than summarily state [appellant’s] point of error, without citations to legal authority or substantive analysis”); San Saba Energy, L.P. v. Crawford, 171 S.W.3d 323, 338 (Tex. App. —Houston [14th Dist.] 15 2005, no pet.) (holding that “parties asserting error on appeal still must put forth some specific argument and analysis showing that the record and the law supports their contentions”); Lowry v. Tarbox, 537 S.W.3d

2022See Craddock, 133 S.W.2d at 126 ; see also Dolgencorp of Tex., Inc. v. Lerma, 288 S.W.3d 922, 926 (Tex. 2009).

2022See Craddock, 133 S.W.2d at 126 ; see also Dolgencorp of Tex., Inc. v. Lerma, 288 S.W.3d 922, 926 (Tex. 2009).

2021See Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 897 ; cf. Lowry, 537 S.W.3d at 620 (“When appellants fail to discuss the evidence supporting their claim or apply the law to the facts, they present nothing for review.”).

2021App. 2007); see Remsburg v. State, 219 S.W.3d 541, 545 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, pet. ref’d) (citing Muniz v. State, 851 S.W.2d 238, 254 (Tex. Crim.