## Facts

- Tommy Trevino was tried for murdering his wife, Michelle Trevino, after a domestic confrontation the Monday after Thanksgiving 1997.
- The State portrayed the killing as an intentional, staged murder by a controlling and abusive husband designed to look like self-defense.
- Trevino claimed Michelle found other women’s phone numbers in his wallet, confronted him, pointed a .38 revolver at him, and pulled the trigger twice without firing.
- Trevino said he went to a bathroom, flushed the phone numbers, retrieved his 9 mm pistol, and then Michelle fired at him as he exited.
- Trevino described a rapid struggle over two guns during which Michelle was shot multiple times.
- Physical evidence did not fully align with Trevino’s account, including the absence of a bullet hole in the bathroom and the location/condition of the firearms.
- Michelle died from three gunshot wounds.
- At guilt/innocence, Trevino asserted self-defense; the jury rejected it and convicted him of murder.
- At punishment, Trevino requested a jury instruction on “sudden passion” under the Texas Penal Code; the trial court refused, and the jury assessed 60 years’ imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether the punishment-phase evidence raised “sudden passion arising from an adequate cause,” entitling Trevino to a jury instruction on that mitigating issue.
2. Whether the trial court’s refusal to submit the sudden-passion instruction required reversal of the punishment judgment.

## Decision

- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the court of appeals.
- The court held that some evidence raised the issue of sudden passion and Trevino was entitled to the requested instruction at punishment.
- The refusal to instruct was error warranting reversal of the punishment portion of the judgment.
- The murder conviction remained intact; the case was remanded for a new punishment proceeding with a sudden-passion instruction.

## Legal Principles

- In Texas murder cases, “sudden passion arising from an adequate cause” is a punishment-phase mitigating issue that, if proved by a preponderance of the evidence, reduces the offense from a first-degree to a second-degree felony for punishment purposes.
- A defendant is entitled to a sudden-passion instruction when the record contains some evidence, from any source, that would permit a rational jury to find sudden passion and adequate cause.
- When deciding whether to submit the instruction, the trial court may not weigh credibility or resolve evidentiary conflicts; those determinations are for the jury.
- Erroneous refusal to submit the issue is harmful when it prevents the jury from considering a statutorily authorized reduction in offense level and punishment range.

## Conclusion

Because the record contained some evidence that the killing occurred during a rapidly escalating confrontation that could support sudden passion arising from adequate cause, the trial court was required to instruct the jury on sudden passion at punishment; its refusal required reversal of the punishment judgment and a new punishment hearing.


Trevino v. State, 100 S.W.3d 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)