With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of jury’s rejection of defendant’s affirmative defense). The civil legal sufficiency standard requires a two-step analysis. First, we examine the record for any evidence that supports the jury’s negative finding while ignoring all evidence to the contrary. See Smith, 355 S.W.3d at 147; Cleveland, 177 S.W.3d at 387 (citing Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co., 767 S.W.2d 686, 690 (Tex.1989)). Second, if no evidence supports the negative finding, then we examine the entire record to determine whether the evidence establishes the affirmative defense as a matter of law. Id. We must defer to the fact finder’s determination of the weight and credibility to give the testimony and , 2010 WL 4488611, at *3 (Tex.App.-San Antonio Nov. 10, 2010, pet. dism’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>). The record satisfies the first prong of civil

A: holding evidence that defendant went to retrieve his gun before discovering that his tires were slashed demonstrated anticipation and preparation even before he was provoked and was not sufficient to require sudden passion instruction
B: holding that the victim pushing and yelling at the defendant just before the shooting was not an adequate cause to give rise to an immediate influence of sudden passion because the fight began earlier in the day
C: holding that evidence was sufficient to prove defendant constructively possessed the gun where although defendant denied ownership of the gun it was found near a knife of which defendant claimed ownership and where defendant was aware of the presence of the gun
D: holding that this instruction is appropriately given when there is both evidence of selfdefense and evidence that the defendant provoked the aggression from which he was defending himself
A.