Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision The circumstantial evidence supporting the finding that appellant intentionally shot the complainant is not so greatly outweighed by contrary proof as to indicate that a manifest injustice has occurred. FACTS:In 1992, Mario Herrera Ponce went to the apartment where the mother of his child and the child lived. While there, the mother’s current boyfriend arrived and eventually went out to Ponce, who was sitting in his truck. The two got into a verbal confrontation, which led to a physical confrontation. During the struggle, Ponce reached for the gun in his glove compartment and pointed it at the boyfriend. The two struggled again, and, in the struggle, the gun went off, shooting the boyfriend in the head. As Ponce drove off, he ran over the boyfriend’s head. Ponce fled to Mexico, but was arrested in North Carolina in 2000. He was charged and convicted of aggravated assault and that he had used a firearm during the offense. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison and fined $10,000. Ponce appeals the factual sufficiency of the evidence, and he says he was denied the opportunity to challenge the venire panel on the members’ ability to follow the law on punishment. HOLDING:Affirmed. The court notes that an aggravated assault conviction requires evidence of intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing serious injury to another, or intentionally or knowingly threatening or injuring another with a deadly weapon. The court rules the state the circumstantial evidence supporting the finding that Ponce intentionally shot the boyfriend is not greatly outweighed by contrary proof to indicate that a “manifest injustice” has occurred. The court notes that the jury was free to reject Ponce’s claim of self-defense, which he said was based on the boyfriend’s previous threats to kill him. The court overrules the point of error concerning the challenge to the venire panel because the alleged error was not properly preserved. OPINION:Hedges, J.; Hedges, Nuchia and Higley, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.