San Antonio Man Charged With Murder After Shooting Vehicle Burglar

Certainly it was established in case law by 1884 with Campbell vs. The State.

I am not familiar with that case nor am I able to locate any Texas case in 1884 involving those parties with a quick search. Do you have a reporter reference or link?

Having said all that, statutory law overrides case law and "lying in wait" goes to intent/mens rea. Since 1884 predates the Model Penal Code by quite a bit and "lying in wait" isn't mentioned in the Penal Code, and Texas statutory law basically reflects the model penal code as to mens rea, I would hazard a guess without further research that all the "lying in wait" allegation does is allow the prosecution to argue that rather than second degree murder or manslaughter, this was first degree murder - that he planned to kill the burglar as revenge.
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
Certainly it was established in case law by 1884 with Campbell vs. The State.

I am not familiar with that case nor am I able to locate any Texas case in 1884 involving those parties with a quick search. Do you have a reporter reference or link?
"This question presents the only debatable issue in the case. This conviction being for murder of the first degree, the evidence must show that the killing was upon express malice; in other words, that the defendant, with a sedate and deliberate mind, and formed design, shot and killed Richard Snow. What evidence is required to show such a mind, and such a design? This formed design is evidenced--shown--by external circumstances, discovering (showing) this inward intention; such circumstances as lying in wait, antecedent menaces, former grudges, and concocted schemes to do deceased some bodily harm. Now, while it is *514 true that the circumstances, to-wit, lying in wait, antecedent menaces, former grudges and concocted schemes to do the deceased some bodily harm, are facts from which this formed design may be inferred, they nor either of these facts are absolutely necessary to prove such a state of mind and such formed design."

Campbell v. State, 1884 WL 8493, at *6 (Tex. App. 1884)
 
Does anyone else wonder why we keep reading these stories first in a UK newspaper?
Do they keep personnel over here JUST to find these types of stories?
 
Now that makes things interesting.
So if the defendant was quicker on the draw, and engaged the alleged thief while he was still inside the van, maybe he wouldn't be facing charges?
It's pretty simple really.. If you believe your life is in imminent danger or in imminent danger of serious bodily injury, deadly force is justified.

If the thief drew a weapon and got shot first then this story may have a different ending.. but the fact that the shooter appeared to be lying in wait for the thief (who apparently repeadily broke into the shooters van), may still be a deciding factor as that gives the appearance of pre- meditation.
 
Last edited:
I think that's exactly how its being used in the decision to charge this man. Its not very believable that he just happened to pull into the parking lot of a closed business, stays in his vehicle, and a few minutes later someone pulls up next to his vehicle and "breaks in" the back. The defense of the "breaking in" is likely believed to be a lie and a cover story. At least that's my perception.

Of course even if that really is what happened, the defendant still would likely face criminal charges based off of the brief facts in the article (if they are accurate). Likely not 1st degree murder though.
I'm pretty sure pre-meditated murder is 1st degree..
 
I'm pretty sure pre-meditated murder is 1st degree..

I'm pretty sure you are correct. Maybe I wasn't clear. IF the two didn't arrange to meet, and IF this was a case of a guy actually breaking into the defendants van who was shot while running away... the defendant still very well may be charged but probably not with 1st degree murder (likely some form of manslaughter, depending on the DA and TX's specific laws).

Note the capitalized "IF." Those are some mighty big "if's." The law doesn't appear to buy his story of the deceased breaking into his van at this point. Sounds pretty fishy to me, as well, at least how the article portrays it anyway.
 
I'm pretty sure you are correct. Maybe I wasn't clear. IF the two didn't arrange to meet, and IF this was a case of a guy actually breaking into the defendants van who was shot while running away... the defendant still very well may be charged but probably not with 1st degree murder (likely some form of manslaughter, depending on the DA and TX's specific laws).

Note the capitalized "IF." Those are some mighty big "if's." The law doesn't appear to buy his story of the deceased breaking into his van at this point. Sounds pretty fishy to me, as well, at least how the article portrays it anyway.
Gotcha.. Misread the post.. appreciate the clarification..
 
Back
Top