## Facts

- One evening, Luis Gonzalez and his wife, Lorenza Orozco, argued after Orozco found Gonzalez at a strip club following his workday.
- The argument continued after both drove home and entered their house.
- During the argument inside the house, Gonzalez took a shotgun from a closet and shot Orozco.
- Orozco died from the shooting.
- At trial, Gonzalez testified he thought the shotgun was empty and that he did not intend to kill Orozco, but instead meant to scare her.
- Gonzalez also testified he had never loaded or used that shotgun and did not know how its safety worked, though he admitted owning other guns and knowing how to use them.
- The State presented evidence that police found an empty box of shotgun ammunition in the home.
- The State also presented evidence that the shotgun was functioning properly and, to fire, it had to be “racked” first.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support a jury finding that Gonzalez acted recklessly (manslaughter), rather than only with criminal negligence (criminally negligent homicide), when he claimed he believed the shotgun was unloaded.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the conviction for manslaughter.
- The court concluded a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Gonzalez acted recklessly in handling and firing the shotgun during the argument.
- The court held the jury was entitled to disbelieve Gonzalez’s claim that he thought the shotgun was empty and that he only intended to frighten Orozco.
- The court relied on the surrounding circumstances and the firearm evidence—such as the presence of ammunition in the home and that the gun had to be racked to fire—as support for the jury’s inference that Gonzalez was aware of the risk of death and consciously disregarded it.

## Legal Principles

- Manslaughter requires proof the defendant acted recklessly, meaning he was aware of, but consciously disregarded, a substantial and unjustifiable risk that death would occur.
- Criminally negligent homicide requires proof the defendant should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, but failed to perceive it.
- On legal sufficiency review, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and asks whether any rational jury could have found the required mental state beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The jury may accept or reject a defendant’s testimony about intent and awareness, and may infer the defendant’s mental state from conduct, circumstances, and physical evidence.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Gonzalez’s manslaughter conviction because the evidence allowed the jury to infer that, during a heated argument, Gonzalez’s actions in obtaining and firing a functioning shotgun—together with evidence suggesting the gun was prepared to fire—supported a finding of recklessness rather than a mere failure to perceive the danger.


Gonzalez v. State, 2004 WL 100517 (2004)