## Facts

- Dallas police issued a bulletin seeking a Chevrolet Caprice suspected of involvement in a murder.
- Two days later, two plainclothes officers in an unmarked vehicle saw a car matching the bulletin and called for marked patrol units.
- Marked patrol cars began following the Caprice, which Wesley Lynn Ruiz was driving, and a chase began.
- During the pursuit, Ruiz lost control of the Caprice and spun out, coming to rest facing the roadway with its rear against a fence.
- A pursuing officer positioned his marked patrol car to block Ruiz’s car.
- The officer approached the passenger side of Ruiz’s car and began striking the passenger-side window with a baton.
- A gunshot came from inside the car, shattered a window, and struck the officer.
- Other officers fired at the vehicle; Ruiz was pulled from the car wounded and unconscious.
- The gun that fired the fatal shot was found on Ruiz’s lap.
- The officer died from his injuries.
- Ruiz was tried for capital murder based on killing a police officer who was acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty, convicted, and sentenced to death.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the officer was acting in the “lawful discharge of an official duty” where Ruiz claimed the officer violated departmental policy by approaching the car and striking the window instead of using other methods to obtain surrender.
2. Whether allowing the “lawful discharge” element to be satisfied despite an alleged policy violation makes the death penalty arbitrary and capricious under the Eighth Amendment.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s punishment-phase findings, including future dangerousness and the mitigation special issue.

## Decision

- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Ruiz’s capital-murder conviction and death sentence on automatic direct review.
- The court held the evidence was legally sufficient for a rational jury to find that Ruiz intentionally or knowingly caused the officer’s death.
- The court held the evidence was legally sufficient for a rational jury to find the officer was acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty; an internal policy violation, by itself, did not remove the officer from that status.
- The court rejected Ruiz’s Eighth Amendment claim that this interpretation permits arbitrary imposition of the death penalty.
- The court upheld the jury’s punishment-phase answers, including the future-dangerousness special issue, and rejected Ruiz’s remaining claims of error.

## Legal Principles

- A peace officer is acting in the “lawful discharge of an official duty” for Texas capital-murder purposes when the officer is performing law-enforcement functions within the scope of the officer’s authority; alleged violations of departmental procedures do not, standing alone, negate that element.
- Legal sufficiency is reviewed under the Jackson v. Virginia standard, considering whether any rational jury could find the elements beyond a reasonable doubt when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.
- The Eighth Amendment requires principled limits on capital eligibility and guided sentencing discretion, but it does not require capital eligibility for killing a police officer to turn on compliance with internal police policies.
- Punishment-phase findings in Texas capital cases, including future dangerousness and the mitigation issue, are upheld when the record supports a rational jury’s answers under the applicable standards of review.

## Conclusion

The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Ruiz’s conviction and death sentence, concluding that the evidence supported a finding that Ruiz shot and killed an on-duty officer during an attempted apprehension, that any departure from departmental tactics did not defeat the “lawful discharge” element of capital murder, and that applying the capital statute on these facts did not violate the Eighth Amendment or undermine the jury’s punishment-phase findings.


Ruiz v. State, 2011 WL 1168414 (2011)