## Facts

- Brian Boyd McGann asked his friend, John Carlson, whether Carlson knew someone who could kill McGann’s wife.
- Carlson was a police intelligence source and reported McGann’s request to law enforcement.
- Police arranged an undercover operation in which McGann met with an officer posing as a “hitman.”
- McGann agreed to pay $10,000 for the killing, with $5,000 to be paid up front and $5,000 after the murder.
- In a planning meeting, McGann provided identifying information about his wife and details about her schedule so the killing could be carried out.
- McGann paid $1,600 in cash as part of the proposed $5,000 down payment and indicated he intended to proceed with the plan.
- McGann also discussed having his wife’s parents killed if the first killing succeeded.
- Police arrested McGann after the meeting, and he was charged with criminal solicitation of capital murder (based on the solicitations discussed in the meetings).
- At trial, McGann sought to defend on entrapment and offered psychiatric testimony to explain his alleged susceptibility to inducement; the trial court excluded the proposed expert testimony.
- McGann also requested a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of renunciation, arguing he renounced by paying only part of the down payment; the trial court denied the instruction.
- A jury found McGann guilty, and he appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding psychiatric expert testimony offered to support McGann’s entrapment defense.
2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of renunciation to criminal solicitation based on McGann’s partial payment and claimed abandonment.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the convictions.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the psychiatric testimony because it would not assist the jury on entrapment as defined by Texas law and was not shown to be sufficiently reliable and helpful under Rule 702.
- The court held McGann was not entitled to a renunciation instruction because the evidence did not raise a voluntary and complete renunciation accompanied by withdrawal or prevention of the solicited offense.

## Legal Principles

- Expert testimony is admissible only if it is relevant and will help the jury understand the evidence or decide a fact in dispute; the trial court has broad discretion to exclude expert testimony that is not helpful or not reliably grounded.
- Texas entrapment applies an objective test that focuses on whether police conduct would likely cause an ordinarily law-abiding person to commit the offense; a defendant’s individualized psychological susceptibility is generally not the measure of entrapment.
- Renunciation of criminal solicitation requires evidence of a voluntary and complete abandonment of the criminal objective, plus conduct showing withdrawal (such as clearly countermanding the solicitation) or otherwise preventing commission of the offense; mere nonpayment, partial payment, or an uncommunicated intent not to follow through does not raise the defense.

## Conclusion

McGann v. State affirmed McGann’s solicitation-of-capital-murder convictions because the proposed psychiatric testimony about his mental condition did not materially aid the jury under Texas’s objective entrapment standard, and the record showed no evidence that McGann voluntarily and completely abandoned the plan in a way that withdrew the solicitation or prevented the killing, so a renunciation instruction was not required.


McGann v. State, 30 S.W.3d 540 (2000)