DA Pronounces Retrial for APD Officer Accused of Fatal Behavior in 2022 Deadly Shooting

Introduction: A Major Development in Austin Police Accountability

In a significant legal turn, the Travis County District Attorney’s Office has formally announced its intent to pursue a retrial for Austin Police Department (APD) Officer Daniel Sanchez. The charge, “fatal behavior,” stems from his involvement in a fatal officer-involved shooting that occurred in 2022. This announcement, made in February 2024, resets the high-profile case that had previously resulted in a mistrial, thrusting questions of police use of force, Texas criminal law, and the judicial process back into the central spotlight for Austin and the nation.

This article provides a comprehensive, SEO-optimized breakdown of the case. We will move beyond the headlines to examine the specific legal charge of “fatal behavior,” the timeline of events from the 2022 incident through the first trial, the procedural reasons for the retrial, and the broader implications for law enforcement accountability in Texas. Our goal is to deliver a clear, pedagogical, and fact-based resource for anyone seeking to understand this complex and consequential legal proceeding.

Key Points: The Core Facts of the Retrial Announcement

The decision to retry Officer Sanchez is based on specific legal grounds following the initial trial. Here are the essential, verifiable facts as currently understood from official court documents and statements from the Travis County DA’s Office:

• Defendant: Daniel Sanchez, a former Austin Police Department officer.
• Charge: “Fatal behavior” under Texas law, a charge distinct from murder or manslaughter, typically applied when a person commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes death, but without the specific intent required for murder.
• Incident: The charge relates to an officer-involved shooting that occurred on April 24, 2022, in Austin, Texas. The deceased was Jose Gutierrez, 27.
• First Trial Outcome: The initial trial in late 2023 ended in a mistrial after the jury informed the court it was unable to reach a unanimous verdict, resulting in a “hung jury.”
• Prosecutorial Decision: The Travis County District Attorney, José Garza, has exercised prosecutorial discretion to file a motion for a new trial, which the court has granted.
• Legal Status: Officer Sanchez has pleaded not guilty. He remains out of custody pending the retrial, consistent with standard procedure for this charge and his prior status.
• Next Steps: A new trial date will be set. The process will involve jury selection, presentation of evidence, and arguments from both the prosecution and defense, all subject to the rules of evidence and criminal procedure.

Background: The 2022 Incident and the Path to Trial

The April 24, 2022, Shooting

On the evening of April 24, 2022, APD officers responded to a disturbance call in North Austin. According to police statements and initial reports, the encounter with Jose Gutierrez escalated, culminating in Officer Sanchez firing his service weapon. Gutierrez was pronounced dead at the scene. The Austin Police Department immediately placed Sanchez on administrative leave, a standard protocol for officer-involved shootings, and the case was turned over to the Travis County Sheriff’s Office for an independent investigation, as is customary in Austin to avoid conflict of interest.

The Investigation and Indictment

Following a multi-month investigation by the Sheriff’s Office, the case was presented to a Travis County grand jury. In June 2022, the grand jury returned an indictment against Daniel Sanchez for the felony charge of “fatal behavior.” This charge is codified in Texas Penal Code § 19.04 and is sometimes referred to as “criminally negligent homicide” or sits in a legal gray area between manslaughter and negligent homicide, depending on jurisdiction. It requires that a person commit an act “clearly dangerous to human life” that causes death, but without the conscious intent to cause serious bodily injury or death (required for murder) or the “reckless” mental state (required for manslaughter). The indictment signaled the grand jury’s belief that Sanchez’s actions, while perhaps not intentionally or recklessly lethal, were a grossly negligent deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would observe.

The First Trial and the Mistrial

The first trial commenced in October 2023. After weeks of testimony, including from APD use-of-force experts, forensic pathologists, and fellow officers, the case was submitted to the jury. After several days of deliberation, the jury foreperson informed the judge that the panel was deadlocked and unable to reach a unanimous decision on a verdict. With no possibility of a consensus, the judge declared a mistrial. A mistrial due to a hung jury is not an acquittal; it simply means the prosecution failed to meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” burden with this particular jury at this time. The state retains the right to retry the case.

Analysis: Deconstructing the “Fatal Behavior” Charge and Its Implications

The choice to charge an on-duty police officer with “fatal behavior” rather than murder or manslaughter is a critical and legally nuanced aspect of this case. Understanding this charge is key to understanding the prosecution’s theory and the defense’s strategy.

Understanding “Fatal Behavior” Under Texas Law

Texas law does not have a single, universally named “fatal behavior” statute. The charge in this case is most likely an application of Texas Penal Code § 19.04 (Involuntary Manslaughter) or possibly § 19.05 (Criminally Negligent Homicide), tailored by the prosecutor to the specific facts. The distinction hinges on the defendant’s mental state (mens rea):

• Involuntary Manslaughter (§ 19.04): Requires a person to commit an act “recklessly” that causes death. “Recklessness” is defined as being aware of but consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk.
• Criminally Negligent Homicide (§ 19.05): Requires a person to commit an act with “criminal negligence” that causes death. “Criminal negligence” is a failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care an ordinary person would exercise.

Prosecutors in police shooting cases often opt for these lesser-included charges because proving the specific intent for murder (intentionally or knowingly causing death) is exceptionally difficult when an officer claims they acted in self-defense or defense of others based on a perceived imminent threat. The “fatal behavior” theory argues that even if the officer subjectively feared for their life, their actions—such as the decision to escalate, the positioning, the number of shots fired, or the failure to use less-lethal alternatives—were objectively reckless or criminally negligent given the totality of the circumstances.

Why a Retrial? The Legal Basis

The decision to retry after a mistrial is a matter of prosecutorial discretion, but it is not automatic. The DA’s office likely evaluated:

1. The Nature of the Deadlock: Was the jury split 11-1 for conviction, 6-6, or 10-2 for acquittal? A close split leaning toward conviction strengthens the rationale for a retrial.
2. New Evidence or Legal Developments: Were there any evidentiary rulings that can be clarified or new witnesses that emerged? (No public indication of this exists yet).
3. Public Interest and Justice: The DA’s office has stated a belief that the charge is warranted and that a jury can be found to apply the law to the facts. The severity of the outcome—a death—weighs heavily.
4. Resource Availability: The significant resources already invested in the first trial make a retrial a practical consideration.

Double jeopardy does not attach after a mistrial caused by a hung jury. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held (e.g., United States v. Perez, 1824; Arizona v. Washington, 1978) that a mistrial for manifest necessity does not bar a retrial. A hung jury is the classic example of manifest necessity.

The Broader Context: Police Prosecutions in Texas

This case occurs against a backdrop of intense national and local debate over police accountability. In Texas, prosecuting on-duty officers for use-of-force incidents is historically rare. The decision by the Travis County DA’s office, under elected progressive leadership, to pursue charges—and now a retrial—signals a willingness to test the boundaries of criminal liability for police conduct in the field. The legal strategy of using “fatal behavior” or similar charges is part of a broader trend in some jurisdictions to seek convictions where proving “malice aforethought” for murder is deemed unfeasible, but where the conduct is viewed as unjustifiably dangerous.

Practical Advice: Navigating the Aftermath of an Officer-Involved Incident

For families of victims, community members, or even officers involved in such traumatic events, the legal process is daunting. While this case is specific, the general principles offer guidance:

For Families and Civilian Witnesses:

• Secure Independent Counsel: Especially if you are a potential witness or civil party, consult with an attorney independent of the state’s prosecutors. The DA represents the state, not individual victims.
• Document Everything: Write down your recollections, times, locations, and what you saw or heard as soon as possible. Memory degrades.
• Understand the Process: A criminal trial is about the state proving guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” It is not a civil lawsuit for damages (which has a lower “preponderance of evidence” standard). A mistrial or retrial does not imply innocence; it is a procedural outcome.
• Seek Support: These cases are emotionally taxing. Engage with victim’s advocacy groups or mental health professionals.

For Legal Professionals and Reform Advocates:

• Focus on Jury Instructions: The definition and application of terms like “recklessly” vs. “negligently” will be paramount. Crafting precise jury instructions is a critical battleground.
• Expert Testimony is Key: Both sides will heavily rely on use-of-force experts, forensic pathologists, and police procedure experts to argue whether the officer’s actions were objectively reasonable, reckless, or criminally negligent.
• Public Records Requests: Actively pursue the release of all non-exempt records (body camera footage, internal investigation reports, dispatch logs) through the Texas Public Information Act to build public understanding and, potentially, civil cases.

FAQ: Answering Common Questions About the Sanchez Retrial

What does “fatal behavior” mean in this case?

It is a legal charge alleging that Officer Sanchez committed an act that was “clearly dangerous to human life” and that this act caused Jose Gutierrez’s death. The prosecution must prove he acted either recklessly (involuntary manslaughter) or with criminal negligence (criminally negligent homicide), but without the specific intent to kill required for a murder charge.

Is a retrial double jeopardy?

No. The Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy does not apply when a trial ends in a mistrial due to a hung jury (an inability of the jury to reach a verdict). The “manifest necessity” doctrine permits a retrial in such circumstances.

What are the possible outcomes of the retrial?

1. Conviction: On the charge of fatal behavior, which carries a potential sentence of 2 to 20 years in prison and a possible fine. 2. Acquittal: A “not guilty” verdict, after which the case is over and Sanchez cannot be retried for this incident. 3. Another Mistrial: If the jury is again deadlocked, the DA would have to decide whether to pursue a third trial, which is increasingly rare.

How long will the retrial take?

It is difficult to predict precisely. The first trial lasted several weeks. The retrial, with likely similar volumes of evidence and testimony, could take a comparable amount of time, plus additional time for jury selection. It is unlikely to occur before late 2024 or into 2025, depending on court dockets and pre-trial motions.

Can the family of Jose Gutierrez sue in civil court?

Yes, independently of the criminal case. The outcome of the criminal trial is not determinative in a civil wrongful death lawsuit, which has a lower burden of proof (“preponderance of the evidence”). The family has likely already filed or will file a civil suit against Officer Sanchez, the Austin Police Department, and the City of Austin. Evidence and testimony from the criminal retrial can be used in the civil case.

What happens to Officer Sanchez’s job at APD?

He was placed on administrative leave after the 2022 shooting and has remained off-duty. Following the indictment, his employment status would be determined by APD’s internal affairs process and the Civil Service Commission. A criminal conviction, especially for a felony, would almost certainly result in termination. An acquittal might allow for reinstatement, but the administrative process is separate from the criminal case.

Conclusion: The Significance of the Retrial

The Travis County District Attorney’s decision to retry Officer Daniel Sanchez for fatal behavior is more than a procedural update; it is a pivotal moment with profound implications. It tests the application of a lesser-included criminal charge in the highly charged context of an officer-involved shooting. The outcome will signal whether a jury in Travis County finds that an on-duty officer’s actions, even if not intentionally murderous, can rise to the level of criminally reckless or negligent conduct warranting felony conviction.

For the family of Jose Gutierrez, it represents a continued pursuit of accountability. For the Austin Police Department, it is a severe institutional challenge that will inevitably influence training, policy, and officer morale. For the community, it is a public reckoning with