## Facts

- Joshua William Lay became angry with Darryl Dwane Feggett and told others he was going to kill Feggett.
- Lay rode his bicycle from Feggett’s apartment area to his home, retrieved a firearm, and then rode back to Feggett’s apartment.
- Lay brought a nine-millimeter pistol to the apartment and shot Feggett four times, killing him.
- Lay did not dispute that he shot and killed Feggett; he disputed his motive and mental state, arguing the proof did not show he intended to kill.
- A jury in the 354th District Court of Hunt County convicted Lay of murder and assessed punishment at 30 years’ imprisonment.
- Lay appealed to the Sixth Court of Appeals (Texarkana), challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence on intent and the trial court’s refusal to submit jury instructions on manslaughter and self-defense.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to allow a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Lay intentionally or knowingly caused Feggett’s death (murder under Texas Penal Code § 19.02(b)(1)).
2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to submit a manslaughter instruction as a lesser-included offense of murder.
3. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense.

## Decision

- The court affirmed Lay’s conviction and 30-year sentence.
- The evidence was legally sufficient for the jury to find Lay acted intentionally or knowingly in causing Feggett’s death.
- The trial court did not err in refusing a manslaughter instruction because the record did not contain evidence that would allow a rational jury to find Lay guilty only of manslaughter (reckless killing) and not murder.
- The trial court did not err in refusing a self-defense instruction because there was not evidence raising a fact issue that Lay reasonably believed deadly force was immediately necessary at the time of the shooting.

## Legal Principles

- In a legal-sufficiency review, an appellate court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and asks whether any rational jury could find each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Sufficiency is measured against a hypothetically correct jury charge authorized by the indictment and the governing law.
- A jury may infer intent or knowledge from a defendant’s conduct and the surrounding circumstances, including prior statements, obtaining a firearm, going to the victim’s location, and firing multiple shots.
- A defendant is entitled to a lesser-included-offense instruction only if (1) the requested offense is included within the charged offense, and (2) there is some evidence that would permit a rational jury to find the defendant guilty only of the lesser offense.
- Manslaughter requires proof of recklessness; a lesser-included instruction is not warranted when the evidence does not raise a jury question that the defendant acted only recklessly rather than intentionally or knowingly.
- A defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction only if there is some evidence that he reasonably believed force was immediately necessary to protect against another’s use or attempted use of unlawful force; deadly force requires the additional statutory conditions for deadly force.
- A self-defense charge is properly refused when the evidence does not raise an immediate threat requiring defensive force at the time the defendant used force.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed Lay’s murder conviction because the jury could reasonably infer an intentional or knowing killing from Lay’s threat to kill Feggett, his decision to retrieve a gun, his return to the apartment, and his firing of four shots, and because the record did not raise a jury issue that would support guilt only for reckless manslaughter or justify a self-defense instruction.


Lay v. State, 359 S.W.3d 291 (2012)