Funes v. State
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of murder and other crimes after a pool hall fight. On appeal, defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court's refusal to give a voluntary manslaughter jury instruction, the effectiveness of his trial counsel, the admission of his post-arrest statement, and the trial court's sustaining an objection to his cross examination of a state witness. The court held that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to authorize a rational jury to reject defendant's justification defense and find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted. The court held that neither fear that someone was going to pull a gun nor fighting prior to a homicide were types of provocation demanding a voluntary manslaughter charge and, moreover, defendant testified that he fired because he was "just scared," and acting out of fear was not the same as acting in the heat of a sudden irresistible passion. The court further held that defendant failed to demonstrate that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel; defendant's post-arrest statement was admissible where he was advised of his Miranda rights both verbally and in writing, and he signed a waiver; and the trial court did not err when it limited defendant's cross examination of the detective who interrogated him where the trial court merely imposed reasonable limits on cross examination. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.