## Facts

- Tommy Trevino was convicted of murdering his wife, Michelle Trevino, by shooting her three times.
- At Trevino’s 1999 trial, the jury found him guilty of murder and assessed punishment at 60 years’ confinement.
- On Trevino’s first appeal, the court reversed the punishment because the jury was not instructed on sudden passion at punishment and remanded for a new punishment trial.
- On remand, a new jury heard punishment evidence, received a sudden-passion instruction, declined to find sudden passion arising from adequate cause, and assessed life imprisonment.
- Trevino admitted he shot Michelle but testified he did so in terror after Michelle pointed a gun at him and fired first.
- Trevino relied on: (1) his own account of the shooting; (2) his brother’s testimony that Michelle had previously aimed a gun at Trevino during a prior marital incident; and (3) evidence that Trevino appeared distraught when police arrived.
- The State introduced contrary evidence that, although a revolver was found in the home and had been fired, Michelle’s fingerprints were not on the gun and there was no gunshot residue on her hands.
- The record included evidence of marital conflict, including Trevino’s admitted infidelity, Michelle’s discussion of divorce, and the State’s theory that Trevino killed her because she was seeking greater independence and might leave him.

## Issues

1. Whether the punishment-phase evidence was factually insufficient to support the jury’s rejection of Trevino’s sudden-passion claim (i.e., whether the negative finding was so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or unjust).

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the judgment sentencing Trevino to life imprisonment.
- The court held the evidence was factually sufficient to support the jury’s refusal to find sudden passion arising from adequate cause.
- The jury could reasonably disbelieve Trevino’s account that Michelle fired first and could weigh the forensic evidence (no fingerprints on the revolver; no gunshot residue on Michelle) against his testimony.
- Given the conflicting evidence and the jury’s role as the judge of credibility and weight, the court would not disturb the punishment verdict.

## Legal Principles

- In Texas murder cases, “sudden passion arising from an adequate cause” is a punishment-phase issue that can reduce the punishment range; the defendant bears the burden to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence.
- “Sudden passion” requires an immediate emotional state (such as terror, anger, or resentment) caused by provocation that arises at the time of the offense; it cannot rest only on earlier discord or prior provocation.
- When the defendant challenges the factual sufficiency of a jury’s negative finding on an issue the defendant had the burden to prove, the reviewing court considers all the evidence in a neutral light and reverses only if the failure to find in the defendant’s favor is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or unjust.
- The jury, as factfinder, decides witness credibility and may accept or reject any portion of testimony; appellate courts generally defer to those credibility choices when the record contains conflicting evidence.

## Conclusion

Because the punishment record contained conflicting accounts of the shooting, forensic evidence that cast doubt on Trevino’s claim that Michelle fired first, and circumstantial evidence supporting the State’s motive theory, the court held the jury’s rejection of sudden passion was not clearly wrong or unjust and affirmed the life sentence.


Trevino v. State, 157 S.W.3d 818 (2005)