News and Insights

a question that commits a prospective juror to resolve or to refrain from resolving an issue a certain way after learning of a particular fact. Commitment questions are impermissible unless the law requires a commitment, and the law does not require a commitment on what facts a juror will consider during sentencing.

The CCA also cautions, however, that “a trial court abuses its discretion if it disallows a proper voir dire question.”

In Davis v. State, a case decided by the CCA last month, the defense counsel asked the venire panel the follow question:

Let’s talk about factors in [assessing] the sentence in a case of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, what factors do y’all think are important?

Despite counsel’s fine use of the word “y’all,” and without any objection to the question by the State, the trial judge interjected, saying, “that’s a commitment question. You can’t ask that question.” On appeal, the 14th District Court of Appeal (Houston) agreed.

The CCA now reverses, holding that

appellant’s counsel asked “what factors…are important” in sentencing. This did not ask the jurors how particular facts would influence their deliberations. This was an inquiry into the jurors’ general philosophies.

There you have it. Cases regarding commitment questions are always very fact dependant, but for now, we can add one more to the list. Counsel may properly ask: "What factors are important in assessing the sentence in a [name your offense] case."

Presiding Judge Keller penned the lone dissent.  She deems the question an improper commitment question.

Byrd v. State

In Byrd, the state charged appellant with theft of certain property from owner “Mike Morales.” At trial, however, the State did not prove, in any way whatsoever, that the property belonged to Mike Morales. The overwhelming proof showed that the property, in fact, belonged to Walmart. On appeal, appellant argued the the evidence was insufficient because the State did not prove that the property belonged to Mike Morales. The 4th Court disagreed, holding that the name of the owner was not required, as it was simply a variance of proof.

This week, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. In a unanimous opinion written by Judge Cochran, the CCA held that:

Although the name of the owner is not a substantive element of theft, the State is required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person (or entity) alleged in the indictment is the owner is the same person (or entity) – regardless of the name – as shown by the evidence.

The CCA explained that a conviction would still stand if an indictment alleged an incorrect name, such as Buddy Smith, when the proof at trial revealed that the victim’s name was, in fact, John Smith (Buddy was simply a nickname). In that instance, there would be sufficient evidence showing that the person alleged in the indictment is the same person from whom the property was stolen.

In this case:

Not only did the State fail to offer any evidence that "Mike Morales" - the person alleged in the theft indictment - has any ownership interest in or relationship to the property appellant shoplifted, but the jury, without any apparent concern the missing "Mile Morales," convicted her nevertheless.  According to the State, the "only explanation for this exceptional circumstance seems to be that it was so clear to all the parties involved - and possibly to the jury as well - that the real victim (both alleged and proven) was Wal-Mart that the discrepancy seemed not to matter."  An alternate, less generous explanation, is that everyone was asleep at the wheel.

As a rule for future Walmart theft cases (and all theft cases), the majority opinion states:

The parties, the court, and the jury must know the identity of the owner [of the stolen property] regardless of how the State names him.

It is worth noting that the CCA did not foreclose the option of the State reindicting the appellant for theft from “Walmart,” as jeopardy has not attached to that specific offense. But as far as theft from Mike Morales goes, the appellant stands acquitted.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals released an opinion this month in a case where a man entered a convenience store brandishing a rifle. When the man looked around, however, he noticed that there wasn’t anyone in the store. The store clerk was in the back office watching the man on the security camera. When the clerk saw the man enter the store, he locked the office and called 911. Unable to open the cash register, the "robber" stole the clerk’s wallet and some money that was behind the counter. The "robber" never saw anyone inside the store.  Then he left.

The man was later charged with and convicted of Aggravated Robbery under Texas Penal Code Section 29.02, which provides in relevant part:

a person commits [robbery] if, in the course committing theft…and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or harm.

Appellant argued that “because there was no evidence of interaction between him and [the victim], the evidence was legally insufficient to support a robbery conviction, and the conviction should be reformed to that of theft. Accordingly, the CCA was faced with a question of first impression in Texas:

Does the Offense of Aggravated Robbery Require Interaction Between the Accused and the Purported Victim?

Appellant contested that he could not intentionally or knowingly place a person in fear, if that person was unknown to him. A unanimous CCA disagreed, explaining that

'knowingly' does not refer to the defendant’s knowledge of the actual results of his actions, but knowledge of what results his actions are reasonably certain to cause. Using this definition, robbery-by-placing-in-fear does not require that a defendant know that he actually places someone in fear, or know whom he actually places in fear. Rather, it requires that the defendant is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to place someone in fear, and that someone is actually placed in fear.

In this case, because Appellant brandished the rifle in the convenience store, the CCA held that his culpable mental state was not negated by the fact that the victim did not happen to be in his presence. In sum, the CCA answered the question presented in the negative.

The offense of Aggravated Robbery does NOT require interaction between the accused and the purported victim.

Read the full CCA opinion in Howard v. State.

The Many Ways to Commit Assault with a Motor Vehicle in Texas

Faced with the question of whether Reckless Driving is a lesser-included offense of Aggravated Assault With a Motor Vehicle (alleged as a Deadly Weapon), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals explained that there are, indeed, many ways in which a vehicle can be used as a deadly weapon apart from the vehicle being driven, to wit:

• Locking the victim in a hot car, • Slamming the victim’s head again the car frame, • Rigging the car’s gas tank to explode, • Placing the car in neutral and allowing it to run into the victim or a building, • Suffocating the victim in the trunk, or • Running the car in an enclosed area to cause carbon monoxide poisoning.

The CCA used this creative list to reverse the 5th Court of Appeals (Dallas), which had previously held that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury that it could find appellant guilty of the LIO of Reckless Driving if it believed the State did not prove Aggravated Assault w/a Deadly Weapon. The appellant argued at trial and on appeal that the LIO should apply, thereby giving the jury another option.

You can read the full opinion of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Rice v. State here.

In Taylor v. State, the appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to 70 years confinement and a $10,000 fine for each offense. Much of the testimony at trial, however, related to acts appellant committed while he was a minor. The evidence showed that appellant began sexually abusing a young girl when he was 13 years old and she was 8. The abuse continued for several years, the final occurrence happening when appellant was 20 years old and the victim was 15.

Texas Penal Code Section 8.07(b) provides that unless a juvenile court waives (or has previously waived) jurisdiction and certifies an individual for criminal prosecution, "a person may not be prosecuted for or convicted of any offense committed before reaching 17 years of age."  Accordingly, while evidence was admitted at trial regarding appellant’s acts before he turned 17, he can only be convicted of those acts that occurred after he was 17.

The trial court failed to instruct the jury of this requirement and the jury returned a guilty verdict. On appeal, appellant argued that the jury charges were erroneous because they did not limit the jury’s consideration to evidence of acts committed after he turned 17. The 1st Court of Appeals (Houston) held that the Court was required to instruct the jury that appellant could not be convicted of criminal acts committed before he turned 17, and that appellant was denied a fair and impartial trial as a result. The Court of Appeals reversed the case.

The CCA now reverses the Court of Appeals. It agrees with the Court of Appeals that the instruction should have been given to the jury, even if neither party requested the instruction. But the CCA held, nonetheless, that the error did not deprive appellant of a fair and impartial trial. The CCA states:

Here, the error was the omission of an instruction, rather than the presentation to the jury of an erroneous instruction…[T]he jury in this case could have convicted Appellant based upon evidence presented, even if the proper instruction had been given and Appellant’s pre-seventeen acts were disregarded by the jury. The evidence showed an eight-year pattern of escalating sexual abuse of J.G. by Appellant. Appellant turned 17 years old midway through the abusive period, meaning that he is subject to prosecution for his conduct beginning on that birthday…and evidence of molestation that occurred after that date was introduced at trial.

So, basically the CCA is saying – “We don’t know from the face of the record exactly which instances of abuse the jury believed, and we can’t say with 100% certainty that they believed any of the instances after appellant was 17, but we know they definitely believed something happened at some time.”

The CCA ultimately concludes that Appellant was not denied a fair and impartial trial. My question is – “How do we know that?” I realize that appellant said he didn’t commit any of the alleged acts and I also realize that the jury, by their verdict, believed that he did.  But how do we know that the jury didn’t conclude that the appellant was guilty of only those acts that occurred when he was a minor?  We don’t.