## Facts

- Michael Alan Loun was at the home where he lived with his girlfriend, Jodi Clark, along with several other people, including Miranda Fancher.
- Jack Edward “Trey” LaPelley III, intoxicated, came to the door demanding to see Fancher, who was inside.
- Clark refused to let LaPelley in because she knew LaPelley had previously physically abused Fancher.
- After Clark opened the door slightly, LaPelley forced his way inside.
- Loun intervened, loaded his firearm, and ordered LaPelley to leave.
- Loun, a former U.S. Army sergeant with hand-to-hand combat training, pointed the gun at LaPelley when he refused to leave.
- LaPelley stepped toward Loun and attempted to slap the gun out of Loun’s hand.
- After regaining his balance, Loun fired three shots in quick succession, killing LaPelley.
- Loun claimed he acted in self-defense, asserting he reasonably believed deadly force was immediately necessary.
- Loun’s first trial ended in a mistrial after the jury could not reach a verdict.
- In the second trial, the jury found Loun guilty of murder; the jury could not agree on punishment, and the court declared a mistrial on punishment only.
- In a third trial limited to punishment, a new jury found Loun acted under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause and assessed a 10-year prison sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the murder conviction and the jury’s rejection of Loun’s self-defense claim.
2. Whether the punishment charge’s altered parole instruction required reversal under Texas jury-charge error standards.
3. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the punishment jury on specific potential conditions of community supervision.
4. Whether admitting prior recorded testimony from Rashaan Roberson at the punishment-only trial, after he did not appear, violated evidentiary rules or confrontation rights and required reversal.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the conviction for murder and the 10-year sentence assessed in the punishment-only trial.
- The evidence was legally and factually sufficient for a rational jury to reject self-defense and find murder beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Any error in the parole instruction did not warrant reversal under the applicable harm analysis.
- The trial court did not commit reversible error by refusing to instruct on possible community-supervision conditions.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Roberson’s prior testimony at punishment; the State showed unavailability through good-faith efforts, and the testimony had been given under oath with an earlier opportunity for cross-examination.

## Legal Principles

- Legal sufficiency asks whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, any rational factfinder could find the offense elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- (At the time of this case) factual sufficiency review in Texas considered all evidence in a neutral light to decide whether the verdict was clearly wrong or manifestly unjust.
- When a defendant raises self-defense, the State bears the burden of persuasion to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt; the jury decides witness credibility and the weight of the evidence and may accept or reject the defensive account.
- In evaluating the reasonableness of deadly force, the factfinder may consider whether the other person was armed, the nature of the threat, the defendant’s options and abilities, and the amount of force used (including multiple shots fired in quick succession).
- Jury-charge error in Texas is reviewed for harm; the level of harm required for reversal depends on whether the defendant preserved the complaint in the trial court.
- A trial court generally is not required to instruct a punishment jury on the specific conditions that could be imposed if community supervision were recommended.
- Former testimony may be admitted when the declarant is unavailable despite good-faith efforts to secure attendance and the opposing party previously had an opportunity and similar motive to cross-examine; under those conditions, admission generally satisfies confrontation requirements.
- The trial court’s decision to admit former testimony is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and even if error occurs, reversal depends on harm.

## Conclusion

The Texarkana court of appeals affirmed Loun’s murder conviction and 10-year sentence, holding that the evidence allowed the jury to reject self-defense and that the challenged punishment-phase rulings—an altered parole instruction, denial of an instruction on community-supervision conditions, and admission of an absent witness’s prior testimony—did not justify reversal.


Loun v. State, 273 S.W.3d 406 (2008)