IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-22-00370-CR
JOHNNY ALVIN WILSON, Appellant v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
From the 54th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2020-1292-C2
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In one issue, appellant, Johnny Alvin Wilson, challenges his conviction for capital
murder. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.03. Specifically, Johnny contends that the
evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s rejection of his self-defense claim. We affirm. Background
Johnny was charged by indictment with murdering Christopher Wilson and
Rachel Strickland, the parents of his wife, Ashley Wilson. In the jury charge, the trial
court included a self-defense instruction. The jury rejected Johnny’s self-defense claim,
found him guilty of the charged offense, and assessed punishment at life in prison. The
trial court certified Johnny’s right to appeal, and this appeal followed.
Self-Defense
In his sole issue on appeal, Johnny argues that the evidence is insufficient to
support the jury’s rejection of his self-defense claim. We disagree.
APPLICABLE LAW
A person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against
the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 9.31(a). A
“reasonable belief” is one that an ordinary and prudent person would hold in the same
circumstances as the actor. Id. § 1.07(a)(42).
A defendant has the burden of producing some evidence to support a claim of self-
defense. See Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); see also London v.
State, 325 S.W.3d 197, 202 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. ref’d). The State has the burden
of persuasion in disproving self-defense. See Zuliani, 97 S.W.3d at 594; see also London, 325
S.W.3d at 202. Self-defense is an issue of fact to be determined by the jury. London, 325
Wilson v. State Page 2 S.W.3d at 202. A jury’s guilty verdict is an implicit finding rejecting the defendant’s self-
defense theory. Id.
Because the State bears the burden of persuasion to disprove self-defense by
establishing its case beyond a reasonable doubt, we review sufficiency challenges to the
jury’s rejection of self-defense under the Jackson v. Virginia standard. Smith v. State, 355
S.W.3d 138, 145 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref’d). In resolving the
sufficiency of the evidence issue, we look not to whether the State presented evidence
which refuted appellant’s self-defense evidence, but rather we determine whether after
viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier
of fact would have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt
and also would have found against appellant on the self-defense issue beyond a
reasonable doubt. Braughton v. State, 569 S.W.3d 592, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018).
The reviewing court must defer to the jury’s determinations of the witnesses’
credibility and the weight to be given to their testimony, as the jury is the sole judge of
such matters. Mitchell v. State, 590 S.W.3d 597, 604 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019,
no pet.) (internal citations omitted). Furthermore, self-defense is a fact issue to be
determined by the jury, and the jury is free to accept or reject any defensive evidence on
the issue. Id. (citing Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910, 913-14 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)).
Wilson v. State Page 3 DISCUSSION
Johnny does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the elements
of his conviction for capital murder. Rather, he argues that no rational juror could have
found beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not reasonably believe the use of deadly
force was immediately necessary to protect himself from the use or attempted use of
unlawful force by Christopher.
The record reflects that on the day in question, Ashley and Johnny were at
Johnny’s house with Ashley’s mother, Rachel Strickland. Rachel was over helping
Ashley and Johnny care for their baby. The three of them decided to barbecue. Ashley’s
siblings, Landon and Haley Wilson, as well as Ashley’s father, Christopher Wilson, were
invited over to the house, although Johnny only approved of Rachel at the gathering.
According to Ashley, Christopher, Rachel, and Johnny did not have a good relationship
because Christopher and Rachel did not approve of Ashley having a relationship with
Johnny, her second cousin. Ashley testified that Christopher’s disapproval of the
relationship was expressed repeatedly in text messages and phone calls threatening to
come over and hurt Johnny, who is 5’6” tall, weighs 120 pounds, and has a disabled right
arm. In fact, in August 2019, Ashley and Johnny called the Bellmead Police Department
to report that Christopher and Christopher’s brother, Keith Wilson, were threatening
Johnny.
Wilson v. State Page 4 In any event, on the day in question, Landon, Haley, and Rachel were swimming
in an inflatable pool while Ashley, Johnny, and Christopher were sitting next to each
other talking. Ashley testified that Johnny was trying to get along with the family that
day, which Haley characterized as unusual. At some point, Rachel exited the pool when
Johnny mentioned that Ashley was crying. Then, Landon and Haley began to
roughhouse, and as Haley noted, “[Johnny] was like, if we don’t get out of the pool, then
he's gonna cut the pool and we’re gonna fly toward the fence.” As Landon was exiting
the pool, he heard gunshots. Landon saw Johnny shoot Christopher five times in the
chest and stomach while Christopher was talking on a cell phone sitting in the back of
Johnny’s Chevy Blazer that was open.
Neither Haley nor Landon heard Johnny and Christopher yelling or arguing that
day. However, Ashley testified that Christopher had been drinking heavily that day and
that Christopher “said that he was going to come back later that night with his brother
Keith Wilson and they were gonna mess up Johnny and take me and our son.” Ashley
recalled that Johnny did not immediately pull out his gun and start shooting when
Christopher purportedly made this threat. Rather, Johnny “walked away to try and cool
off.” Ashley acknowledged that approximately twenty or thirty minutes elapsed
between Christopher’s purported threat and Johnny firing the first shots. Ashley also
admitted that Christopher did not state that he was “gonna mess” Johnny up “right now”
and that Christopher “never physically put his hand on [Johnny].”
Wilson v. State Page 5 After Johnny shot Christopher, Johnny went inside his house to reload his
revolver. While Johnny was reloading his revolver, Rachel went over and tried to revive
Christopher. Shortly thereafter, Johnny exited the house and shot Rachel in the back from
two feet away while she was crouched over Christopher.
The State also presented testimony from Irma Denise Martinez, one of Johnny’s
neighbors. She recalled having Johnny over for a meal and hearing him say that “he
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-22-00370-CR
JOHNNY ALVIN WILSON, Appellant v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
From the 54th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2020-1292-C2
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In one issue, appellant, Johnny Alvin Wilson, challenges his conviction for capital
murder. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.03. Specifically, Johnny contends that the
evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s rejection of his self-defense claim. We affirm. Background
Johnny was charged by indictment with murdering Christopher Wilson and
Rachel Strickland, the parents of his wife, Ashley Wilson. In the jury charge, the trial
court included a self-defense instruction. The jury rejected Johnny’s self-defense claim,
found him guilty of the charged offense, and assessed punishment at life in prison. The
trial court certified Johnny’s right to appeal, and this appeal followed.
Self-Defense
In his sole issue on appeal, Johnny argues that the evidence is insufficient to
support the jury’s rejection of his self-defense claim. We disagree.
APPLICABLE LAW
A person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against
the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 9.31(a). A
“reasonable belief” is one that an ordinary and prudent person would hold in the same
circumstances as the actor. Id. § 1.07(a)(42).
A defendant has the burden of producing some evidence to support a claim of self-
defense. See Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); see also London v.
State, 325 S.W.3d 197, 202 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. ref’d). The State has the burden
of persuasion in disproving self-defense. See Zuliani, 97 S.W.3d at 594; see also London, 325
S.W.3d at 202. Self-defense is an issue of fact to be determined by the jury. London, 325
Wilson v. State Page 2 S.W.3d at 202. A jury’s guilty verdict is an implicit finding rejecting the defendant’s self-
defense theory. Id.
Because the State bears the burden of persuasion to disprove self-defense by
establishing its case beyond a reasonable doubt, we review sufficiency challenges to the
jury’s rejection of self-defense under the Jackson v. Virginia standard. Smith v. State, 355
S.W.3d 138, 145 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref’d). In resolving the
sufficiency of the evidence issue, we look not to whether the State presented evidence
which refuted appellant’s self-defense evidence, but rather we determine whether after
viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier
of fact would have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt
and also would have found against appellant on the self-defense issue beyond a
reasonable doubt. Braughton v. State, 569 S.W.3d 592, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018).
The reviewing court must defer to the jury’s determinations of the witnesses’
credibility and the weight to be given to their testimony, as the jury is the sole judge of
such matters. Mitchell v. State, 590 S.W.3d 597, 604 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019,
no pet.) (internal citations omitted). Furthermore, self-defense is a fact issue to be
determined by the jury, and the jury is free to accept or reject any defensive evidence on
the issue. Id. (citing Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910, 913-14 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)).
Wilson v. State Page 3 DISCUSSION
Johnny does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the elements
of his conviction for capital murder. Rather, he argues that no rational juror could have
found beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not reasonably believe the use of deadly
force was immediately necessary to protect himself from the use or attempted use of
unlawful force by Christopher.
The record reflects that on the day in question, Ashley and Johnny were at
Johnny’s house with Ashley’s mother, Rachel Strickland. Rachel was over helping
Ashley and Johnny care for their baby. The three of them decided to barbecue. Ashley’s
siblings, Landon and Haley Wilson, as well as Ashley’s father, Christopher Wilson, were
invited over to the house, although Johnny only approved of Rachel at the gathering.
According to Ashley, Christopher, Rachel, and Johnny did not have a good relationship
because Christopher and Rachel did not approve of Ashley having a relationship with
Johnny, her second cousin. Ashley testified that Christopher’s disapproval of the
relationship was expressed repeatedly in text messages and phone calls threatening to
come over and hurt Johnny, who is 5’6” tall, weighs 120 pounds, and has a disabled right
arm. In fact, in August 2019, Ashley and Johnny called the Bellmead Police Department
to report that Christopher and Christopher’s brother, Keith Wilson, were threatening
Johnny.
Wilson v. State Page 4 In any event, on the day in question, Landon, Haley, and Rachel were swimming
in an inflatable pool while Ashley, Johnny, and Christopher were sitting next to each
other talking. Ashley testified that Johnny was trying to get along with the family that
day, which Haley characterized as unusual. At some point, Rachel exited the pool when
Johnny mentioned that Ashley was crying. Then, Landon and Haley began to
roughhouse, and as Haley noted, “[Johnny] was like, if we don’t get out of the pool, then
he's gonna cut the pool and we’re gonna fly toward the fence.” As Landon was exiting
the pool, he heard gunshots. Landon saw Johnny shoot Christopher five times in the
chest and stomach while Christopher was talking on a cell phone sitting in the back of
Johnny’s Chevy Blazer that was open.
Neither Haley nor Landon heard Johnny and Christopher yelling or arguing that
day. However, Ashley testified that Christopher had been drinking heavily that day and
that Christopher “said that he was going to come back later that night with his brother
Keith Wilson and they were gonna mess up Johnny and take me and our son.” Ashley
recalled that Johnny did not immediately pull out his gun and start shooting when
Christopher purportedly made this threat. Rather, Johnny “walked away to try and cool
off.” Ashley acknowledged that approximately twenty or thirty minutes elapsed
between Christopher’s purported threat and Johnny firing the first shots. Ashley also
admitted that Christopher did not state that he was “gonna mess” Johnny up “right now”
and that Christopher “never physically put his hand on [Johnny].”
Wilson v. State Page 5 After Johnny shot Christopher, Johnny went inside his house to reload his
revolver. While Johnny was reloading his revolver, Rachel went over and tried to revive
Christopher. Shortly thereafter, Johnny exited the house and shot Rachel in the back from
two feet away while she was crouched over Christopher.
The State also presented testimony from Irma Denise Martinez, one of Johnny’s
neighbors. She recalled having Johnny over for a meal and hearing him say that “he
wished he can kill them because he didn’t like them.” Martinez understood “them” to
mean “Landon and Christopher Wilson and Ashley’s mom.”
Johnny’s self-defense theory is premised on the strained relationship he had with
Christopher and Rachel, as well as the verbal threat purportedly made by Christopher on
the day in question. We first note that verbal provocation does not justify self-defense.
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 9.31(b)(1) (“The use of force against another is not
justified . . . in response to verbal provocation alone.”); Braughton, 569 S.W.3d at 606.
Furthermore, “prior disagreements” also do not justify self-defense, especially
considering Ashley’s testimony that Christopher had “never physically put his hand on
[Johnny].” See Elmore v. State, 257 S.W.3d 257, 259 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008,
no pet.) (noting that evidence regarding “prior disagreements” between defendant and
the victim supported a determination that the defendant was not entitled to a self-defense
instruction as a matter of law); see also Williams v. State, No. 06-10-00156-CR, 2011 Tex.
App. LEXIS 1657, at *14 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated
Wilson v. State Page 6 for publication) (concluding that a rational juror could have concluded, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that Williams lacked a reasonable belief that force was immediately
necessary to protect himself from the use or attempted use of unlawful force where the
evidence showed that Williams and the victim engaged in “verbal disagreements,” but
these disagreements never escalated to “fists being used”).
Moreover, the evidence does not establish that Johnny’s use of force was
immediately necessary to protect him against the use or attempted use of unlawful force
by Christopher. See Henley v. State, 493 S.W.3d 77, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (noting that
“[b]oth self-defense and defense of a third person require that there be a reasonable belief
in the immediate need to act” and that in the context of self-defense and defense of a third
person, “force that is immediately necessary to protect oneself or another from a person’s
use of unlawful force is force that is needed at that moment—when a split second decision
is required” (internal quotations & citation omitted)). Indeed, Ashley stated that Johnny
walked away to cool off after Christopher threatened him and that about twenty to thirty
minutes elapsed between the threat and the shooting of Christopher. And finally, Johnny
does not direct us to any evidence presented at trial showing the use or attempted use of
unlawful force by Rachel, who was present at the gathering to take care of Ashley and
Johnny’s baby.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that
a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of capital murder and
Wilson v. State Page 7 against Johnny’s claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. See TEX. PENAL CODE
ANN. § 19.03; see also Braughton, 569 S.W.3d at 609; Smith, 355 S.W.3d at 145. As such, we
overrule Johnny’s sole issue on appeal.
Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
STEVE SMITH Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Smith, and Justice Wright1 Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed August 23, 2023 Do not publish [CRPM]
1 The Honorable Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired) of the Eleventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. §§ 74.003, 75.002, 75.003.
Wilson v. State Page 8