## Facts

- Solomon Medrano Gonzales, Jr. went to the living area of a used furniture store where Paul Chavez, Sr. and his family resided.
- Chavez, who had known Gonzales for about eleven years, saw Gonzales enter and pull a small pistol from his pocket; Chavez told him to put it away, and Gonzales did.
- When Chavez asked if the gun was real, Gonzales responded, “No, look.”
- As Chavez turned to hang up the phone, he saw Gonzales shoot Chavez’s five-year-old son, Paul Chavez, Jr., in the head.
- Gonzales then stated, “when I do something like this, I have to leave,” and fled.
- Later that night, Gonzales was arrested outside a club for carrying a gun on licensed premises; the pistol was identified as the same gun used in the shooting.
- Witnesses described Gonzales as angry but not crazy or drunk; an arresting officer testified Gonzales appeared to have been drinking but was lucid and responsive.
- Gonzales testified he had been drinking heavily, could not remember the events, and had a past history of epilepsy and headaches.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the specific intent to kill required for attempted murder, rather than mere recklessness consistent with involuntary manslaughter.

## Decision

- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find a specific intent to kill.
- The enhanced seventy-five-year sentence remained in effect.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal attempt requires proof of a specific intent to commit the underlying offense.
- Involuntary manslaughter is based on reckless conduct, which is inconsistent with a specific intent to kill.
- Intent may be inferred from the defendant’s acts, words, and conduct, and from the surrounding circumstances.
- A jury may infer an intent to kill from the use of a deadly weapon in a manner capable of causing death, including firing at a vital part of the body at close range.
- Evidence of intoxication or medical history that might bear on intent generally presents a fact question for the jury when other evidence supports a finding of specific intent.

## Conclusion

The court upheld an attempted murder conviction where the defendant shot a child in the head at close range and immediately fled after making a statement indicating awareness of his act, concluding that these circumstances permitted an inference of specific intent to kill rather than mere recklessness.


Gonzales v. State, 532 S.W.2d 343 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976)