Your link isn't working for me (perhaps because it's a mobile address). Here's a good link to the story:
http://www.statesman.com/news/local/no- ... tArticle=y
And here's a link I found to the original story:
http://www.myfoxaustin.com/dpp/top_stor ... z1n9REI2C1
It looks like all the details from the original are in the no-bill story, but the original is written in such a way that the accused is pretty much convicted there on the screen. At first, I wondered how the original would have been written if the details about the shotgun in the trunk had been known, but then I realized that they
had to have been known and already in the police report from the scene. Otherwise, one would think that such evidence would probably not be admissable in court. (As always, IANAL.)
Did the journalist genuinely not know about the shotgun in the trunk, or was it left out for some reason to make the story more sensational? "Man charged with murder" sounds a lot better in the media world than "Man successfully defends himself".