Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas
10-24-00041-CR
Trenton James Adams, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
On appeal from the 443rd District Court of Ellis County, Texas Hon. Cynthia Ermatinger, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 47273CR
JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted Trenton James Adams of capital murder. See TEX.
PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.03(a)(2). The trial court assessed his punishment at
life in prison without parole. In his sole issue on appeal, Adams contends that
the trial court erred by denying his request for a jury charge instruction on the
affirmative defense of insanity. We affirm. RELEVANT BACKGROUND
Adams and his friend, Jordan von Hoffman, were remodeling a trailer in
Ellis County, Texas where Adams planned to live with his girlfriend. In March
of 2021, von Hoffman’s body was found in a shed behind the trailer, wrapped
in a tarp and packed inside of a barrel. He had been hogtied and his clothes
had been cut off of his body. The medical examiner determined von Hoffman’s
cause of death to be homicidal violence through a combination of blunt force
injuries and neck compression. Adams was charged with capital murder for
intentionally causing von Hoffman’s death in the course of committing or
attempting to commit the offense of kidnapping. See id.
Prior to trial, Adams filed notice of his intent to raise the affirmative
defense of insanity. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 46C.051. At the
charge conference, the State objected to the inclusion of an insanity defense
instruction in the jury charge.1 Defense counsel argued that the instruction
should be included in the charge because evidence was presented that Adams
had family history of mental illness, was prescribed medication for psychosis
both before and after the offense, and was acting irrationally both before and
after the offense. The trial court denied the requested instruction, finding that
1 It appears from the discussion on the record that a preliminary version of the charge was prepared
prior to the charge conference that included an insanity defense instruction. A copy of this version of the charge is not in the record.
Trenton James Adams v. The State of Texas Page 2 “there is no evidence in the record to even suggest that […] Trenton Adams did
not know right from wrong at the time he committed the offense.”
AUTHORITY
“A defendant is entitled to an instruction on [a defensive issue] if the
issue is raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is strong or weak,
unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may think
about the credibility of the defense.” Ferrel v. State, 55 S.W.3d 586, 591 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2001). We review a trial court’s decision not to include a defensive
issue in the jury charge for an abuse of discretion and view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the requested instruction. See Wesbrook v. State, 29
S.W.3d 103, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Bufkin v. State, 207 S.W.3d 779, 782
(Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
The affirmative defense of insanity is found in Section 8.01 of the Texas
Penal Code, which provides:
It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that, at the time of the conduct charged, the actor, as a result of severe mental disease or defect, did not know that his conduct was wrong.
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 8.01(a). The issue of a defendant’s insanity must be
submitted to the jury only if the issue is supported by competent evidence. See
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 46C.151(a).
Trenton James Adams v. The State of Texas Page 3 DISCUSSION
The parties agree that the record contains some evidence that Adams
suffered from a mental disease or defect. At trial, Adams called as witnesses
several family members, one of his grandparents’ neighbors, and psychologist
Dr. William Flynn in support of his insanity defense. Dr. Flynn did not
personally interview Adams or perform an insanity evaluation on him, but he
reviewed some of Adams’s medical records. Dr. Flynn testified that according
to the medical records, Adams had been prescribed medication for psychosis in
2016 and 2017. After he arrived at the Ellis County Jail in July of 2021, Adams
requested multiple times to see a doctor because he was having suicidal
thoughts and hearing a voice called “James.” He was eventually diagnosed
with unspecified anxiety disorder and schizoaffective disorder and was
prescribed medication for psychosis. Several family members testified to
Adams’s family history of severe mental illness and his own bizarre behavior,
including two incidents about a week and a half before the murder. In one
instance, on March 11, 2021, Adams showed up at his uncle’s place of work
acting angry and irrational. In another instance, Adams knocked on the door
of one of his grandparents’ neighbor’s, whom he had never spoken with, and
began nonsensically yelling.
Trenton James Adams v. The State of Texas Page 4 While an insanity defense requires proof of a mental disease or defect,
the issue of insanity is not strictly medical. See Bigby v. State, 892 S.W.2d 864,
877 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994); Graham v. State, 566 S.W.2d 941, 949 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1978). It also contains a legal or ethical component that requires evidence
that the defendant did not know his conduct was wrong due to his mental
disease or defect. See Bigby, 892 S.W.2d at 877-78. Adams points to one of his
many proffered motives for murdering von Hoffman – namely, that he killed
von Hoffman for allegedly molesting his girlfriend’s child – to argue that he did
not understand his conduct was wrong because “due to his mental disease or
defect, [he] believed he was morally justified in committing the offense[.]”
However, in the context of an insanity defense, the term “wrong” refers
to the defendant’s understanding of the legality of his actions, not the morality
of his actions. See Ruffin v. State, 270 S.W.3d 586, 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
In other words, “the question for deciding insanity is this: Does the defendant
factually know that society considers this conduct against the law, even though
the defendant, due to his mental disease or defect, may think that the conduct
is morally justified?” Id. Thus, even if Adams thought he was morally justified
in murdering von Hoffman, an insanity defense was raised only if the record
contains some evidence that, due to his mental disease or defect, Adams did
not understand that murdering von Hoffman was against the law.
Trenton James Adams v. The State of Texas Page 5 The record contains several possible motives and explanations for von
Hoffman’s murder, including that Adams murdered von Hoffman in retaliation
for allegedly molesting a child, or as part of a ritualistic blood sacrifice, or
possibly as revenge for Adams’s girlfriend allegedly cheating on him with von
Hoffman. Adams also once claimed that he was forced to dispose of von
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas
10-24-00041-CR
Trenton James Adams, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
On appeal from the 443rd District Court of Ellis County, Texas Hon. Cynthia Ermatinger, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 47273CR
JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted Trenton James Adams of capital murder. See TEX.
PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.03(a)(2). The trial court assessed his punishment at
life in prison without parole. In his sole issue on appeal, Adams contends that
the trial court erred by denying his request for a jury charge instruction on the
affirmative defense of insanity. We affirm. RELEVANT BACKGROUND
Adams and his friend, Jordan von Hoffman, were remodeling a trailer in
Ellis County, Texas where Adams planned to live with his girlfriend. In March
of 2021, von Hoffman’s body was found in a shed behind the trailer, wrapped
in a tarp and packed inside of a barrel. He had been hogtied and his clothes
had been cut off of his body. The medical examiner determined von Hoffman’s
cause of death to be homicidal violence through a combination of blunt force
injuries and neck compression. Adams was charged with capital murder for
intentionally causing von Hoffman’s death in the course of committing or
attempting to commit the offense of kidnapping. See id.
Prior to trial, Adams filed notice of his intent to raise the affirmative
defense of insanity. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 46C.051. At the
charge conference, the State objected to the inclusion of an insanity defense
instruction in the jury charge.1 Defense counsel argued that the instruction
should be included in the charge because evidence was presented that Adams
had family history of mental illness, was prescribed medication for psychosis
both before and after the offense, and was acting irrationally both before and
after the offense. The trial court denied the requested instruction, finding that
1 It appears from the discussion on the record that a preliminary version of the charge was prepared
prior to the charge conference that included an insanity defense instruction. A copy of this version of the charge is not in the record.
Trenton James Adams v. The State of Texas Page 2 “there is no evidence in the record to even suggest that […] Trenton Adams did
not know right from wrong at the time he committed the offense.”
AUTHORITY
“A defendant is entitled to an instruction on [a defensive issue] if the
issue is raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is strong or weak,
unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may think
about the credibility of the defense.” Ferrel v. State, 55 S.W.3d 586, 591 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2001). We review a trial court’s decision not to include a defensive
issue in the jury charge for an abuse of discretion and view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the requested instruction. See Wesbrook v. State, 29
S.W.3d 103, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Bufkin v. State, 207 S.W.3d 779, 782
(Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
The affirmative defense of insanity is found in Section 8.01 of the Texas
Penal Code, which provides:
It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that, at the time of the conduct charged, the actor, as a result of severe mental disease or defect, did not know that his conduct was wrong.
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 8.01(a). The issue of a defendant’s insanity must be
submitted to the jury only if the issue is supported by competent evidence. See
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 46C.151(a).
Trenton James Adams v. The State of Texas Page 3 DISCUSSION
The parties agree that the record contains some evidence that Adams
suffered from a mental disease or defect. At trial, Adams called as witnesses
several family members, one of his grandparents’ neighbors, and psychologist
Dr. William Flynn in support of his insanity defense. Dr. Flynn did not
personally interview Adams or perform an insanity evaluation on him, but he
reviewed some of Adams’s medical records. Dr. Flynn testified that according
to the medical records, Adams had been prescribed medication for psychosis in
2016 and 2017. After he arrived at the Ellis County Jail in July of 2021, Adams
requested multiple times to see a doctor because he was having suicidal
thoughts and hearing a voice called “James.” He was eventually diagnosed
with unspecified anxiety disorder and schizoaffective disorder and was
prescribed medication for psychosis. Several family members testified to
Adams’s family history of severe mental illness and his own bizarre behavior,
including two incidents about a week and a half before the murder. In one
instance, on March 11, 2021, Adams showed up at his uncle’s place of work
acting angry and irrational. In another instance, Adams knocked on the door
of one of his grandparents’ neighbor’s, whom he had never spoken with, and
began nonsensically yelling.
Trenton James Adams v. The State of Texas Page 4 While an insanity defense requires proof of a mental disease or defect,
the issue of insanity is not strictly medical. See Bigby v. State, 892 S.W.2d 864,
877 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994); Graham v. State, 566 S.W.2d 941, 949 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1978). It also contains a legal or ethical component that requires evidence
that the defendant did not know his conduct was wrong due to his mental
disease or defect. See Bigby, 892 S.W.2d at 877-78. Adams points to one of his
many proffered motives for murdering von Hoffman – namely, that he killed
von Hoffman for allegedly molesting his girlfriend’s child – to argue that he did
not understand his conduct was wrong because “due to his mental disease or
defect, [he] believed he was morally justified in committing the offense[.]”
However, in the context of an insanity defense, the term “wrong” refers
to the defendant’s understanding of the legality of his actions, not the morality
of his actions. See Ruffin v. State, 270 S.W.3d 586, 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
In other words, “the question for deciding insanity is this: Does the defendant
factually know that society considers this conduct against the law, even though
the defendant, due to his mental disease or defect, may think that the conduct
is morally justified?” Id. Thus, even if Adams thought he was morally justified
in murdering von Hoffman, an insanity defense was raised only if the record
contains some evidence that, due to his mental disease or defect, Adams did
not understand that murdering von Hoffman was against the law.
Trenton James Adams v. The State of Texas Page 5 The record contains several possible motives and explanations for von
Hoffman’s murder, including that Adams murdered von Hoffman in retaliation
for allegedly molesting a child, or as part of a ritualistic blood sacrifice, or
possibly as revenge for Adams’s girlfriend allegedly cheating on him with von
Hoffman. Adams also once claimed that he was forced to dispose of von
Hoffman’s body after the cartel committed the murder in retribution for Adams
failing to timely repay a debt. In none of these explanations does Adams
indicate that he did not know that his conduct was illegal. None of Adams’s
witnesses at trial provided testimony demonstrating that his mental disease
or defect prevented him from understanding that society considered his
conduct against the law. Dr. Flynn expressly declined to offer any opinion on
whether Adams was insane at the time of the offense.
Adams points to no evidence in the record, nor do we find any, suggesting
that he did not understand that murdering von Hoffman was illegal. It was
for this very reason that the trial court refused to submit the insanity defense
instruction to the jury. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion by refusing to include an insanity defense instruction in the jury
charge because the defensive issue was not raised by the evidence.
Accordingly, we overrule Adams’s sole issue on appeal.
Trenton James Adams v. The State of Texas Page 6 Conclusion
Having overruled Adams’s sole issue on appeal, we affirm the judgment
of the trial court.
STEVE SMITH Justice
OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: June 26, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed Do not publish CRPM
Trenton James Adams v. The State of Texas Page 7