## Facts

- David Scott went late at night to the home of his ex-girlfriend, who lived with her parents, after getting drunk and using cocaine and marijuana.
- Scott tried to call his ex-girlfriend; she refused to talk to him, and he became angry.
- Near the home, Scott found a gasoline can and poured gasoline on the house and on a vehicle parked in the driveway.
- Scott testified that he tried to light pieces of paper to start a fire but could not keep the paper lit and that the gasoline never ignited.
- Scott claimed he then decided to stop on his own, left the gasoline can and paper where they were, and walked away.
- The State’s fire marshal testified that the gasoline on the house and vehicle did ignite and burn briefly.
- The ex-girlfriend’s mother testified that she awoke to the smell of gasoline, opened an exterior door, thought she saw someone crouched outside, turned on an outside light, and called 911.
- Scott was indicted for attempted capital murder and arson-related offenses arising from the incident; under a plea agreement, the State abandoned the attempted capital murder charge.
- Scott entered an open guilty plea to attempted arson of a habitation and attempted arson of a vehicle; the court found him guilty.
- At the bench proceeding, Scott relied on Texas Penal Code § 15.04 and argued he voluntarily and completely renounced his criminal objective; the trial court rejected that claim and assessed a 17-year prison sentence.
- Scott appealed, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s rejection of renunciation.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support the trial court’s rejection of Scott’s affirmative defense of renunciation under Texas Penal Code § 15.04.
2. Whether the evidence was factually sufficient to support the trial court’s rejection of renunciation.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgments.
- The court held the evidence was legally sufficient for the trial court to reject Scott’s renunciation claim.
- The court held the evidence was factually sufficient; the adverse finding on renunciation was not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or unjust under the then-applicable standard.
- The court deferred to the trial court’s role as factfinder in resolving conflicts between Scott’s testimony and the State’s witnesses on ignition and on whether Scott quit because of external circumstances suggesting detection risk.

## Legal Principles

- Texas Penal Code § 15.04 provides an affirmative defense if the defendant voluntarily and completely renounces the criminal objective and, for an attempt, abandons the effort or otherwise avoids commission of the offense.
- Renunciation is not voluntary if it results from circumstances that increase the probability of detection or apprehension, or from circumstances that make completion of the offense more difficult.
- The defendant bears the burden to prove an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
- When the factfinder rejects an affirmative defense, legal-sufficiency review asks whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, any rational factfinder could have found against the defendant on the defense.
- Under the factual-sufficiency framework applied at the time, the reviewing court considers the evidence in a neutral light and upholds the adverse finding unless it is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.
- Credibility choices and reasonable inferences from the evidence are for the factfinder, including whether a claimed abandonment was motivated by fear of discovery.

## Conclusion

The court of appeals affirmed Scott’s attempted-arson convictions and 17-year sentence because the trial court could credit testimony that the gasoline ignited and could also infer from the surrounding events (including the mother’s discovery and 911 call) that Scott’s stopping was not a voluntary and complete renunciation within Texas Penal Code § 15.04, making the evidence sufficient to support rejection of the defense.


Scott v. State, No. 2-06-335-CR, 2007 WL 2460254 (2007)