Cossette v. State, 01-24-00324-CR, March 12, 2026.
On appeal from 184th District Court, Harris County, Texas.
Synopsis
The First Court of Appeals affirmed a murder conviction, holding that a trial court’s rejection of a self-defense claim is legally sufficient when the defendant’s post-offense conduct and the degree of force used—specifically strangling a semi-conscious victim and dismembering the body—refute the immediate necessity of deadly force. The opinion clarifies that the State’s burden of persuasion does not require affirmative rebuttal evidence but can be satisfied by highlighting the defendant’s inconsistent statements and digital forensics indicating a consciousness of guilt.
Relevance to Family Law
For the Texas Family Law litigator, Cossette serves as a critical bridge between criminal standards of justification and civil litigation involving domestic torts, protective orders, and custody “fault” determinations. When a party in a divorce or SAPCR claims self-defense regarding an act of domestic violence, this case underscores that the “consciousness of guilt” evidenced by post-incident concealment (e.g., deleting text messages, searching for legal loopholes, or hiding evidence) is sufficient to defeat a justification defense. In the civil context, where the burden of proof is only a preponderance of the evidence, the tactical use of digital forensics and inconsistent post-incident narratives becomes a dispositive weapon for disqualifying a parent from conservatorship or establishing a basis for a disproportionate estate division based on cruelty.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
In February 2022, Sara Goodwin disappeared after entering a vehicle near the Bissonnet corridor in Houston. Two weeks later, law enforcement conducted a welfare check on Henry David Cossette following a suicide attempt. Cossette initially claimed he killed a woman in self-defense after she brandished a knife in his car. However, his narrative shifted significantly during police interrogations. He eventually admitted to bringing Goodwin to his apartment, where a dispute over a refund for services escalated. Cossette claimed Goodwin attempted to steal his laptop and pulled a knife, leading him to “knock her out” or cause her to hit her head on a coffee table. Crucially, he admitted that while she was semi-conscious, he straddled her and applied manual strangulation until she ceased breathing. Following the death, Cossette dismembered the body in his bathtub, disposed of the remains in trash bags across a field, and conducted extensive digital searches regarding decomposition and whether a “dead” iPhone could be tracked.
Issues Decided
The primary issue was whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support the trial court’s implicit rejection of Cossette’s self-defense claim under Texas Penal Code §§ 9.31 and 9.32.
Rules Applied
- Texas Penal Code § 19.02(b): Defines murder as intentionally or knowingly causing the death of an individual.
- Texas Penal Code § 9.31(a): Provides that a person is justified in using force when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes it is immediately necessary to protect against the other’s use of unlawful force.
- The Jackson v. Virginia Standard: Requires the appellate court to view evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine if any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements and reject the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Burden of Persuasion: Once the defendant produces some evidence of self-defense, the State bears the burden of persuasion (not a burden of production) to disprove the defense.
- Consciousness of Guilt: Established Texas precedent allows a factfinder to infer a lack of justification from a defendant’s flight, concealment of evidence, or inconsistent statements.
Application
The court’s application of the law centered on the “degree of force” and the defendant’s credibility. Even if the trial court believed Goodwin initially brandished a knife, the court found that the necessity for deadly force evaporated once Goodwin was “knocked out” or “semi-conscious.” By Cossette’s own admission, he strangled her while she was incapacitated. The court emphasized that the trier of fact is the sole judge of credibility and was free to reject Cossette’s claim that he felt an immediate threat. Furthermore, the court pointed to the “extraordinary” efforts to conceal the crime—the dismemberment, the cleaning of the scene, and the calculated digital searches—as objective evidence that contradicted a bona fide claim of self-defense. The State did not need to produce “new” evidence to rebut the defense; the inherent inconsistencies and the brutality of the post-mortem conduct provided a sufficient basis for a rational trier of fact to find malice rather than justification.
Holding
The Court held that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the conviction and the rejection of the self-defense claim. The court noted that a defendant’s admission to strangling an incapacitated person, coupled with extensive efforts to hide the body and manipulate digital evidence, allows a rational factfinder to conclude that the use of force was not immediately necessary.
The Court further held that the State satisfies its burden of persuasion by proving the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, which implicitly rejects the defensive theory. No affirmative rebuttal evidence is required if the record as a whole allows for a rational rejection of the defense.
Practical Application
Family law practitioners can utilize the logic in Cossette to dismantle self-defense narratives in high-conflict litigation:
- Defeating Protective Order Defenses: Use the “degree of force” argument to show that even if a petitioner “started” a physical altercation, the respondent’s escalation (especially manual strangulation) exceeds the scope of Texas Penal Code justification.
- Discovery of Digital Footprints: Cossette highlights the value of searching for “consciousness of guilt” via browser history. In divorce litigation, searches for “how to delete texts” or “how to hide assets” immediately following an assault can rebut a claim of “accidental” injury or self-defense.
- Inconsistent Statements as Impeachment: Use the shift in a party’s narrative—from “it didn’t happen” to “it was self-defense”—to argue that the justification is a legal fabrication rather than a reasonable belief of danger.
Checklists
Rebutting a Justification Defense in Domestic Tort Claims
- Analyze the Degree of Force: Was the force used commensurate with the alleged threat? (Focus on strangulation or strikes after the victim was incapacitated).
- Chronology of Post-Incident Conduct: Document efforts to hide phones, prevent 911 calls, or clean physical scenes.
- Identify Narrative Shifts: Compare the initial police report, the Answer to the Petition, and deposition testimony for inconsistencies in the “threat” description.
- Expert Review of Physical Injuries: Use medical records to show “offensive” vs. “defensive” wound patterns on the respondent.
Digital Forensics Discovery Items
- Browser History: Look for searches related to the incident, legal defenses, or “how to” guides on data destruction.
- GPS/Location Data: Map the party’s movements post-incident to identify disposal of evidence or “cooling off” periods that contradict a state of panic or fear.
- Third-Party Apps: Subpoena data from encrypted messaging apps where a party may have admitted the true nature of the event to a confidant.
Citation
Cossette v. State, No. 01-24-00324-CR, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 12, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
The full opinion can be found here: Link to Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
In Texas family courts, the “strangulation” element of Cossette is a massive red flag. Under Texas Family Code § 153.004, the court must consider evidence of domestic violence in determining conservatorship. Cossette provides a blueprint for how to frame an assault as “premeditated” or “malicious” rather than “justified.” If you can show the court that the opposing party engaged in “post-offense concealment” (such as deleting a Ring camera video or searching for “domestic violence lawyers” before the police even arrived), you can argue that their subjective “reasonable belief” of danger was non-existent. This case reinforces that the moment the “threat” is neutralized, any further force—and any subsequent attempt to hide the truth—is evidence of a “guilty mind,” which is lethal to a parent’s standing in a best-interest analysis.
~~71c975e4-4d2e-4de5-81ab-a14610df6371~~
Share this content: