Tepanca v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter, because as a matter of law the defendant’s “sexual jealousy was based wholly on supposition”
• reasoning that the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on sexual jealousy, because the defendant’s “sexual jealousy was based wholly on supposition”
• “[Appellant] leaves this Court to engage in a guessing game as to how appellate counsel’s representation, or rather lack thereof, might have amounted to ineffective assistance. Under these circumstances, [Appellant] has failed to show even a possibility of ineffective assistance[.]”
• be- cause defendant’s “sexual jealousy was based wholly on supposi- tion” that his affair partner “had gone out with” the victim, the evidence did not authorize a jury instruction on sexual jealousy as provocation for voluntary manslaughter
• no error in denying request for instruction on mutual combat where the defendant claimed that he did not want to fight the victim but shot the victim in self-defense after he thought he saw the victim reaching for something

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).