Texas&nbsp;on Thursday executed a&nbsp;man&nbsp;who was&nbsp;convicted&nbsp;for shooting and&nbsp;killing&nbsp;his 29-year-old wife and his two daughters, as well as his father-in-law and sister-in-law shortly after a smoking crack in&nbsp;2002.

Abel Ochoa, 47, was executed with lethal injection and pronounced dead at the state's death chamber in Huntsville at 6.48 p.m&nbsp;17 years after a jury found him guilty of capital murder, according to a statement by the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/two-dead-and-one-wounded-in-shooting-at-texas-university-on-tuesday-278439">Texas&nbsp;</a>Department of Criminal Justice.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/two-dead-and-one-wounded-in-shooting-at-texas-university-on-tuesday-278439">Two dead, one wounded in shooting at Texas University</a>

Ochoa was the third inmate in the United States and the second in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/two-dead-and-one-wounded-in-shooting-at-texas-university-on-tuesday-278439">Texas&nbsp;</a>to be executed in 2020.&nbsp;Texas, which executed nine people in 2019, has executed more prisoners than any other state since the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/two-dead-and-one-wounded-in-shooting-at-texas-university-on-tuesday-278439">US&nbsp;Supreme Court</a> reinstated the death penalty in 1976. The United States is the only large Western democracy to retain capital punishment.

On Aug. 4,&nbsp;2002, 20 minutes after smoking crack cocaine, Ochoa went into his living room and shot to death his wife Cecilia, nine-month-old daughter Anahi, his father-in-law Bartolo and his sister-in-law Jackie, prosecutors said.

He then reloaded his .9mm Ruger handgun and chased his 7-year-old daughter Crystal into the kitchen, where he shot her four times. He had also shot his sister-in-law Alma, the lone survivor of the attack.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/shooter-among-one-dead-in-texas-church-attack-270896">Shooter among one dead in Texas church attack</a>

Police stopped Ochoa soon after the shooting as he drove his wife's car.

"Ochoa told the arresting officer that the gun he used was at his house on the table, that he could not handle the stress anymore, and that he had gotten tired of his life," court records showed.

Ochoa later wrote a confession in which he told authorities he was frustrated that his wife would not give him more money for drugs, court documents said.

Several state and federal courts have denied requests for the execution to be halted and appeals on Ochoa's behalf since his conviction.

On Thursday, the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/two-dead-and-one-wounded-in-shooting-at-texas-university-on-tuesday-278439">US&nbsp;Supreme Court</a> denied a request by Ochoa to stop the execution.

Twenty two people were executed in the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/two-dead-and-one-wounded-in-shooting-at-texas-university-on-tuesday-278439">United States</a> in 2019, down from 25 in 2018 when the country ranked seventh in the world for the number of people it put to death, behind Iraq and Egypt, according to Amnesty International.

Texas on Thursday executed a man who was convicted for shooting and killing his 29-year-old wife and his two daughters, as well as his father-in-law and sister-in-law shortly after a smoking crack in 2002.

Texas on Thursday executed a man who was convicted for shooting and killing his 29-year-old wife and his two daughters, as well as his father-in-law and sister-in-law shortly after a smoking crack in 2002. Abel Ochoa, 47, was executed with lethal injection and pronounced dead at the state's death chamber in Huntsville at 6.48 p.m 17 years after a jury found him guilty of capital murder, according to a statement by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Also read: Two dead, one wounded in shooting at Texas University Ochoa was the third inmate in the United States and the second in Texas to be executed in 2020. Texas, which executed nine people in 2019, has executed more prisoners than any other state since the US Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976. The United States is the only large Western democracy to retain capital punishment. On Aug. 4, 2002, 20 minutes after smoking crack cocaine, Ochoa went into his living room and shot to death his wife Cecilia, nine-month-old daughter Anahi, his father-in-law Bartolo and his sister-in-law Jackie, prosecutors said. He then reloaded his .9mm Ruger handgun and chased his 7-year-old daughter Crystal into the kitchen, where he shot her four times. He had also shot his sister-in-law Alma, the lone survivor of the attack. Also read: Shooter among one dead in Texas church attack Police stopped Ochoa soon after the shooting as he drove his wife's car. "Ochoa told the arresting officer that the gun he used was at his house on the table, that he could not handle the stress anymore, and that he had gotten tired of his life," court records showed. Ochoa later wrote a confession in which he told authorities he was frustrated that his wife would not give him more money for drugs, court documents said. Several state and federal courts have denied requests for the execution to be halted and appeals on Ochoa's behalf since his conviction. On Thursday, the US Supreme Court denied a request by Ochoa to stop the execution. Twenty two people were executed in the United States in 2019, down from 25 in 2018 when the country ranked seventh in the world for the number of people it put to death, behind Iraq and Egypt, according to Amnesty International.

Texas executes man convicted of killing five family members in 2002

Natalie Portman and George Clooney address powerful women

The US&nbspSupreme Court sided with the Trump administration and against China on Thursday on a disputed aspect of their fraught trade relationship, throwing out a lower court ruling that had allowed two Chinese vitamin C makers to escape $148 million in damages for violating American antitrust law.

In a case that brought the trade conflict between the world's two largest economies before the top US&nbspcourt, the justices ruled 9-0 that the lower court gave too much deference to Chinese government filings in the case explaining China's regulatory policy.

The justices sent the case back for reconsideration by the New York-based 2nd US&nbspCircuit Court of Appeals, which in 2016 threw out the damages won by two American vitamin C buyers.

Writing for the court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that while US&nbspcourts should give "respectful consideration" to a foreign government's interpretation of its own law, they are not "bound to accord conclusive effect to the foreign government's statements."

Lawyers for the US&nbspand Chinese governments faced off in April before the justices. The Supreme Court took the unusual step of letting China present arguments even though it is not an official party in the case, a privilege typically reserved for the US&nbspJustice Department.

The price-fixing case dates back to 2005 when Texas-based Animal Science Products Inc and New Jersey-based The Ranis Co Inc accused Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical and North China Pharmaceutical Group and other Chinese vitamin C makers of antitrust violations.

China intervened in the case, asking the trial court to dismiss the allegations in part because its laws had forced Chinese companies to comply with government-mandated pricing regimes.

A US&nbspfederal judge questioned the credibility of the Chinese submissions and, after a 2013 jury trial, awarded the two American companies $147.8 million in damages.

The New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the judgment in 2016, saying that when a foreign government directly participates in a case American courts are obligated to defer to that country's characterization of its own laws.

The Supreme Court itself did not weigh in on the correct interpretation of Chinese law, but Ginsburg said questions remained over "whether Chinese law required the Chinese sellers' conduct."

China and the United States are locked in a simmering trade dispute. President Donald Trump has accused China of unfair trade practices and threatened to impose tariffs on up to $150 billion in Chinese goods over allegations of intellectual property theft. China has warned of retaliation.

In a case that brought the trade conflict between the world's two largest economies before the top US court, the justices ruled 9-0 that the lower court gave too much deference to Chinese government filings in the case explaining China's regulatory policy.

The US&nbspSupreme Court sided with the Trump administration and against China on Thursday on a disputed aspect of their fraught trade relationship, throwing out a lower court ruling that had allowed two Chinese vitamin C makers to escape $148 million in damages for violating American antitrust law. In a case that brought the trade conflict between the world's two largest economies before the top US&nbspcourt, the justices ruled 9-0 that the lower court gave too much deference to Chinese government filings in the case explaining China's regulatory policy. The justices sent the case back for reconsideration by the New York-based 2nd US&nbspCircuit Court of Appeals, which in 2016 threw out the damages won by two American vitamin C buyers. Writing for the court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that while US&nbspcourts should give "respectful consideration" to a foreign government's interpretation of its own law, they are not "bound to accord conclusive effect to the foreign government's statements." Lawyers for the US&nbspand Chinese governments faced off in April before the justices. The Supreme Court took the unusual step of letting China present arguments even though it is not an official party in the case, a privilege typically reserved for the US&nbspJustice Department. The price-fixing case dates back to 2005 when Texas-based Animal Science Products Inc and New Jersey-based The Ranis Co Inc accused Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical and North China Pharmaceutical Group and other Chinese vitamin C makers of antitrust violations. China intervened in the case, asking the trial court to dismiss the allegations in part because its laws had forced Chinese companies to comply with government-mandated pricing regimes. A US&nbspfederal judge questioned the credibility of the Chinese submissions and, after a 2013 jury trial, awarded the two American companies $147.8 million in damages. The New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the judgment in 2016, saying that when a foreign government directly participates in a case American courts are obligated to defer to that country's characterization of its own laws. The Supreme Court itself did not weigh in on the correct interpretation of Chinese law, but Ginsburg said questions remained over "whether Chinese law required the Chinese sellers' conduct." China and the United States are locked in a simmering trade dispute. President Donald Trump has accused China of unfair trade practices and threatened to impose tariffs on up to $150 billion in Chinese goods over allegations of intellectual property theft. China has warned of retaliation.

US Supreme Court hands Trump win in China antitrust case