Investigators say the defendant claimed self-defense, but an affidavit points to a statement prosecutors may argue undercuts that account.
WACO, Texas — A murder case out of nearby Hewitt is likely to hinge not only on gunfire outside a home, but on what police say the accused man told them afterward: that the victim should not have been there and that he would do it again.
That alleged statement gives the case a different weight as it moves through court. On one side is Eric Rene Enriquez’s claim that he was defending himself at home after receiving threats. On the other is a prosecution narrative that may use his own words, together with physical evidence and the broader timeline, to argue that deadly force was not justified. A McLennan County grand jury has now formally indicted him on one count of murder in the death of George Armando Turrubiartez Sr.
The affidavit described a striking sequence once officers reached the house on Saddle Horn Drive. They had been dispatched shortly before 9 p.m. on Feb. 5 after reports of roughly 10 shots. Turrubiartez, 54, was found outside with fatal wounds. Officers then called for the people inside the house to come out. Enriquez emerged onto the porch with his hands up, according to the affidavit, and quickly said he was defending his home. Police wrote that he told them Turrubiartez had threatened him and that he had a right to defend himself. Later, after officers told him he was being charged with murder, the affidavit says Enriquez replied that Turrubiartez “shouldn’t have been there” and that “he would do it again.” Those words, if admitted and accurately reported, may become one of the prosecution’s strongest emotional points.
Yet the self-defense claim did not arise in a vacuum. Enriquez told detectives he had been receiving calls and text messages from Turrubiartez saying he was coming to the house. He said he saw the victim arrive through a surveillance camera system before going outside. According to the warrant, Enriquez believed it was obvious that Turrubiartez had come there to start a confrontation. He said the victim uttered an obscenity, and then he fired. The public record does not show whether Turrubiartez carried a weapon, reached for one or physically advanced in a way that would support a self-defense claim. It also does not clearly establish whether he exited his car before the shooting began. Those gaps matter because Texas self-defense law often turns on what threat existed at the moment force was used, not simply on angry words or the decision to show up.
Investigators appear to have built the surrounding timeline from both digital and personal evidence. A woman identified in the records as Enriquez’s ex-wife and Turrubiartez’s live-in girlfriend told police that Turrubiartez had read text messages between her and Enriquez and become upset. She said he left her residence, and she later tracked his location and realized he seemed to be headed toward Enriquez’s home. That account may help prosecutors argue that the men were drawn into a personal, escalating conflict that began before anyone stood in the driveway. It may also help the defense explain why Enriquez believed the threat was real when the car arrived. In that sense, the case is not just about one exchange outside a house. It is about the buildup: who knew what, who said what, who chose to go where and how those choices converged in a few fatal moments.
The forensic record adds blunt facts that neither side can easily avoid. Police said Turrubiartez was struck multiple times in the chest and abdomen and once in the head. The affidavit described the firearm as an “assault rifle.” Enriquez allegedly told officers he did not know how many shots he fired and said he went back inside, unloaded the gun and put it on a couch. Authorities later obtained search warrants for the house and the victim’s vehicle and collected evidence. Hewitt police initially said they believed the shooting was an isolated incident and that there was no ongoing danger to the public. They also said a juvenile inside the home was unharmed. Those details may not answer the legal question of justification, but they define the scene prosecutors and defense lawyers will be trying to reconstruct before a judge or jury.
The procedural path ahead is now more predictable than the facts. Enriquez remains in the McLennan County Jail on $750,000 bond after the grand jury indictment announced in early March. His attorney has said he is reviewing discovery and preparing the defense. The court will next handle appearances, motions and evidence exchange, and the defense may eventually ask a jury to view the shooting through the lens of fear and home protection. Prosecutors, by contrast, are likely to focus on the decision to go outside, the number and placement of the shots and the alleged statement after the arrest. No publicly reviewed report listed a trial date, plea agreement or dismissal motion.
As the case stands now, one man is dead, one man is indicted and the most important unanswered question is whether the law will treat the shooting as justified force or murder. The next milestone is further district court action in McLennan County, where those competing stories will start to harden into formal arguments.
Author note: Last updated April 2, 2026.