## Facts

- George Edward McFarland was prosecuted in Harris County, Texas for capital murder committed in the course of robbery under Tex. Penal Code § 19.03(a)(2).
- The victim, Kenneth Kwan, owned a grocery store and returned from a bank with approximately $27,000 intended to cash customers’ payroll checks.
- Witnesses described a planned robbery at the store and identified McFarland as the armed assailant; one witness saw him hold a security guard and fire toward the store entrance during the incident.
- Additional testimony and other evidence linked McFarland to the robbery and shooting, including testimony that he admitted shooting Kwan.
- The jury charge permitted conviction based on McFarland’s own conduct or as a party acting with intent to promote or assist the offense; it did not authorize conviction under the Penal Code § 7.02(b) conspiracy-party theory.
- McFarland was represented by retained lead counsel (John Benn) and court-appointed co-counsel (Sandy Melamed); Benn was alleged to have been unprepared and to have slept during portions of trial, while Melamed handled substantial trial duties.
- The jury convicted McFarland, answered Texas capital sentencing special issues in a manner requiring a death sentence under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.071, and the trial court sentenced him to death.
- McFarland raised numerous appellate complaints, including legal sufficiency, ineffective assistance at guilt and punishment, and several jury-charge and punishment-phase errors.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove McFarland caused Kwan’s death during the robbery as a principal or as a party.
2. Whether McFarland was denied effective assistance of counsel under Strickland based on alleged lack of preparation, limited investigation, tactical choices, and allegations that lead counsel slept during trial.
3. Whether the trial court committed reversible error in jury instructions and punishment-phase procedure, including party-liability instructions, refusal of a requested punishment instruction focusing on individual culpability, and the response to a jury question about the meaning of “society.”

## Decision

- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and death sentence.
- The court held the evidence was legally sufficient, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the verdict, to support guilt as a principal shooter or as a party.
- The court rejected ineffective-assistance claims, holding McFarland failed to prove deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland when counsel’s representation was assessed as a whole, including active participation by co-counsel.
- The court rejected additional claimed errors, including objections to jury-charge language, refusal of a requested “anti-parties” punishment instruction, and the trial court’s refusal to define “society” in response to a jury question.

## Legal Principles

- Legal sufficiency is assessed by viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determining whether a rational factfinder could find the elements beyond a reasonable doubt; party liability may support a capital conviction when supported by the evidence and authorized by the charge.
- Ineffective assistance requires proof of (1) deficient performance and (2) a reasonable probability of a different outcome absent the deficiency; courts generally treat many trial choices (jury selection, cross-examination scope, and witness decisions) as strategic unless the record shows otherwise.
- Allegations of counsel’s inattentiveness or sleeping are evaluated under Strickland absent a showing that the defendant was effectively denied counsel for a critical stage; the presence and performance of active co-counsel may be relevant to deficiency and prejudice.
- A jury charge is evaluated as a whole; abstract language not included in the application paragraph generally does not expand the basis for conviction.
- A trial court may decline to provide additional definitions to punishment-phase terms deemed commonly understood, and error claims may be forfeited if not properly preserved.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed McFarland’s capital murder conviction and death sentence, holding that the evidence supported guilt as a principal or party, that alleged deficiencies in defense representation (including a sleeping-counsel allegation) did not satisfy Strickland’s deficiency-and-prejudice requirements when the defense was considered as a whole, and that the challenged jury-charge and punishment-phase rulings did not warrant reversal.


McFarland v. State, 928 S.W.2d 482 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)