Not Guilty Aggravated Assault Jury Trial in Hays County

Not Guilty Verdict in Hays County Texas
Aggravated Assault Jury Trial With No Felony Conviction

In San Marcos, Texas a Hays County jury returned Not Guilty verdicts in a case arising from a violent road rage incident on Interstate 35. The defense was led by Alex Joyner, with Robert Leahey assisting at trial. The client faced charges of Aggravated Assault and two counts of Deadly Conduct Discharge of a Firearm.

Before trial, the State sought five years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The jury rejected that outcome. After hearing the evidence, jurors found that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the client’s actions were unjustified. The verdict resulted in no felony conviction, and the court later granted an expunction of the arrest and charges under Texas law.

The Legal Challenge
Road Rage Allegations and Firearm Use

The case stemmed from a prolonged and dangerous encounter on I-35. Evidence showed that the complaining witness followed the client for an extended distance, attempted to run the client’s vehicle off the road, and forced a roadside stop. The situation escalated quickly, placing the client and passengers in fear of serious harm.

The prosecution characterized the incident as aggravated assault. They argued that discharging a firearm during a traffic confrontation constituted criminal conduct regardless of context. Two counts of deadly conduct were added to reinforce that theory.

The defense position was different. Texas law allows the use of force, including deadly force, when a person reasonably believes it is immediately necessary to protect against unlawful force. The central question for the jury was not whether the situation looked bad, but whether the State could disprove justification beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defense Strategy
Justification and Reasonable Doubt

Alex Joyner and Robert Leahey focused the jury on sequence and context. Evidence showed that the alleged victim initiated the pursuit and repeatedly re-engaged even after backing off. The client testified openly, acknowledging that he was not calm or polite during the encounter. The defense did not attempt to sanitize the client’s personality.

Instead, the case was framed around fear, immediacy, and necessity. The firearm was discharged after sustained pursuit and attempted vehicular interference. Testimony established that shots were fired to stop the threat, not to harm. The jury was asked to evaluate whether the State proved that the client’s fear was unreasonable.

Cross examination exposed gaps in the State’s narrative. The prosecution could not establish that the alleged victim disengaged before the shots were fired. Nor could they show that the client continued force after the danger ended.

Jury Verdict
Not Guilty on All Charges

After deliberation, the jury returned Not Guilty verdicts on aggravated assault and both deadly conduct counts. While jurors may have believed the situation could have been handled differently, they concluded that the State did not meet its burden of proof.

The verdict confirms a core principle of Texas criminal law. A defendant does not need to prove justification. The State must disprove it.

Expunction Granted

Following acquittal, the court granted an expunction, clearing the record of the arrest and charges. Under Texas law, this restores the client’s legal standing as if the case had never occurred.

What This Road Rage Case Shows

Road rage cases often provoke strong reactions. Jurors are still required to apply the law, not emotion. This Hays County verdict demonstrates that justification remains a meaningful defense when supported by facts.

Why Clients Choose Dunham & Jones

Dunham & Jones prepares serious felony cases for jury trial. Our defense attorneys challenge overcharging, test assumptions, and hold the State to its burden. In Hays County and across Texas, that preparation matters.