Matlock v. State

In Matlock v. State, No. 12-05-00413-CR (Tex. App.--Tyler Jul. 31, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication), the appellate court ruled that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that an emergency existed. See id. at 8. The Matlock Court premised its conclusion on the fact that the record included no direct testimony of fear of imminent assault. See id. at 5-8. In that case, the defendant's wife called 9-1-1 because she heard her child say, "Daddy," which indicated that her husband, who lived apart from her at that time, was in the house. Id. at 2. With her cordless telephone in hand, she walked into the hall, and the defendant grabbed the telephone away from her and hung up. Id. The appellate court noted that "the record before us is devoid of any evidence that Lisa the defendant's wife was afraid of the defendant." Id. at 6. The Matlock Court emphasized, "The record includes no direct evidence that Lisa was afraid of the defendant nor does the record contain any facts or circumstances from which we might infer that when Lisa made the call she reasonably feared she was in danger of imminent assault." Id. at 7.