Criminal Defense

Defining “Recklessness” Under the Texas Penal Code

There are some criminal offenses that require the state the prove that the defendant acted “recklessly” or with “criminal recklessness.” In a colloquial sense, we (including prosecutors) often think of recklessness as another word for carelessness, but it actually has a specific definition in the Texas Penal Code.

Defining “Recklessness,” Tex. Penal Code Section 6.03(c) states that “a person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist, or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor’s standpoint."

What Does the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Say About Recklessness?

Unpacking the legal standard of recklessness, The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reasons that...

“Criminal recklessness must not be confused with (or blended into) criminal negligence, a lesser culpable mental state.” Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 751 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). “Criminal negligence depends upon a morally blameworthy failure to appreciate a substantial and unjustifiable risk while recklessness depends upon a more serious moral blameworthiness – the actual disregard of a known substantial and unjustifiable risk.” Id.

Criminal negligence and recklessness differ from one another only in terms of mental state:

• Criminally negligent defendant “ought to be aware” of a substantial and unjustifiable risk;
• Reckless defendant is subjectively aware of an identical risk but disregards it

The two prongs of gross negligence or recklessness are:

• Subjectively, the defendant must have actual awareness of the extreme risk created by his or her conduct.
• Objectively, the defendant’s conduct must involve an extreme degree of risk (the “extreme risk” prong is not satisfied by a remote possibility of injury or high probability of minor harm, but the likelihood of serious injury to the plaintiff).

Reckless conduct...

• Is the conscious disregard of the risk created by the actor’s conduct;
• Mere lack of foresight, stupidity, irresponsibility, thoughtlessness, ordinary carelessness, however, serious the consequences may be, do not suffice to constitute criminal recklessness;
• Criminal recklessness is of a gross and flagrant character, evincing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects; or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences; or which shows such wantonness or recklessness or a grossly careless disregard of the safety and welfare of the public, or that reckless indifference to the rights of others, which is equivalent to an intentional violation of them.

Recklessness: Texas Case Law Examples

Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007): The defendant was convicted after her children died in an accidental house fire while her boyfriend was babysitting. The defendant took the children to a house without working utilities and left them under her boyfriend’s care with a candle lit in their bedroom. The court held that there was legally insufficient evidence that defendant consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the children would suffer serious bodily injury in a house fire. The court also said that the defendant’s stupidity did not constitute reckless disregard. The defendant was not criminally responsible for the result

Mills v. State, 742 S.W.2d 831, 1987 Tex. App. LEXIS 9214 (Tex. App. Dallas Dec. 18. 1987, no writ): The defendant’s conviction was upheld where circumstantial evidence supported the conclusion that defendant placed a child in a tub of hot water. The Court found that the jury could reasonably have found defendant acted recklessly with regard to that child’s care in violation of Tex. Penal Code § 6.03(c).

Ehrhardt v. State, No. 06-02-00208-CR, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 7248 (Tex. App. Texarkana Aug. 26, 2003): Where the evidence in an assault trial showed defendant struck the victim in the face, the court found that the defendant was reckless as to whether her conduct would result in bodily injury.

What is Criminal Negligence in Texas?

In Texas, there are some criminal offenses for which a person can be liable if they acted with “criminal negligence.” When most people think of “negligence,” they think of a civil standard used in lawsuits for money damages. But criminal negligence, the courts have reasoned, is different from ordinary civil negligence.

Section 6.03(d) of the Texas Penal Code states that “a person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor’s standpoint.”

How does Criminal Negligence Differ from Civil Negligence in Texas?

Civil or simple negligence means the failure to use ordinary care, that is, failing to do that which a person of ordinary prudence would not have done under the same or similar circumstances. Montgomery v. State, 369 S.W.3d 188, 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). Conversely, conduct that constitutes criminal negligence involves a greater risk of harm to others, without any compensating social utility, than does simple negligence. Id. The carelessness required for criminal negligence is significantly higher than that for civil negligence; the seriousness of the negligence would be known by any reasonable person sharing the community’s sense of right and wrong. Id. The risk must be substantial and unjustifiable, and the failure to perceive it must be a gross deviation from reasonable care as judged by general societal standards by ordinary people. Id.

For example: The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that criminally negligent homicide requires not only a failure to perceive a risk of death, but also some serious blameworthiness in the conduct that caused it (i.e., risk must be “substantial and unjustifiable,” and the failure to perceive that risk must be a “gross deviation” from reasonable care).

In finding a defendant criminal negligent, a jury is determining that the defendant’s failure to perceive the associated risk is so great as to be worthy of a criminal punishment. The degree of deviation from reasonable care is measured solely by the degree of negligence, not any element of actual awareness. Whether a defendant’s conduct involves an extreme degree of risk must be determined by the conduct itself and not by the resultant harm. Nor can criminal liability be predicated on every careless act merely because its carelessness results in death or injury to another.

Case Law Examples of Criminal Negligence Standard in Texas

McKay v. State, 474 S.W.3d 266 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015): The Court of Criminal Appeals holding insufficient evidence of criminal negligence to support Defendant’s conviction for injury to a child after he spilled hot water on the two-year-old child while he was in the kitchen, because there was no evidence that Defendant failed to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk to the child. There was no showing that the child was often underfoot or that defendant knew the child could likely be under his feet while moving around in the kitchen.

Queeman v. State, 520 S.W.3d 616 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017): The Court of Criminal Appeals holding insufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction of criminally negligent homicide because the evidence presented does not show that Defendant’s failure to maintain a safe driving speed and keep a proper distance from other vehicles was a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary diver would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from Defendant’s standpoint at the time of his conduct.

Tello v. State, 180 S.W.3d 150 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005): The Court of Criminal Appeals upheld Appellant’s criminal negligent homicide conviction reasoning that Appellant should have perceived a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death from using a faulty trailer hitch without safety chains on a public road. The homemade trailer unhitched from Appellant’s truck and killed a pedestrian.

Making an “Open Plea” in a Criminal Case

In Texas, when a defendant pleads guilty to a criminal offense, the sentencing is most often agreed upon by both the State Prosecutor and defendant prior to the plea. But, there are situations that arise wherein a defendant wishes to enter a plea of guilty, but does not agree to accept the sentencing recommendation that is being made by the State. The defendant may request that the judge assess an appropriate sentence, believing that the judge might be more fair-minded than the DA in this particular case. This situation is referred to as an “Open Plea.” In an open plea, after a defendant pleads guilty, both parties may put evidence on for the judge in order for the court to determine an appropriate sentence.

Pre-Sentence Investigation (PSI) as Part of an Open Plea

In addition to witness testimony, prior to sentencing a defendant, Texas Law (Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 42A.252) requires a community supervision officer to prepare and submit a written report to the court. The report should include:

• the circumstances of the offense with which the defendant is charged;
• the amount of restitution necessary to adequately compensate victims of the offense;
• the criminal and social history of the offender; and
• any other information relating to the offender or the offense requested by the judge.”

The probation officer gathers this information during a pre-sentence investigation or PSI.

The Law Regarding PSIs in Texas | When is a PSI Required?

The law requires a pre-sentence investigation in every case, UNLESS:

In a misdemeanor case:

1. The defendant requests that a report not be made and the judge agrees;
2. The judge finds that there is sufficient evidence in the record to permit sentencing without the report; and
3. The judge explains this finding on the record.

In a felony case:

1. Punishment is to be assessed by a jury;
2. The defendant is convicted of or enters a plea of guilty to capital murder;
3. The only available punishment is imprisonment; or
4. The judge is informed that a plea bargain exists, under which the defendant agrees to a punishment of imprisonment, and the judge intends to follow that agreement.

Unless one of these scenarios are present, the court is required to conduct a pre-sentence investigation. For agreed pleas to probation or deferred adjudication, the practice by the Tarrant County courts is that pre-sentence investigation is not often conducted, even though the law would seem to dictate otherwise.

The Mechanics of a Pre-Sentence Investigation

The PSI is an interview conducted by a specialized probation officer who – along with a defendant’s attorney – gathers as much information as possible to aid in a Judge’s decision on punishment. The officer gathers the police agency’s version of the facts and the defendant’s version of the facts regarding the underlying offense. The officer will also contact the victims named in the case to obtain a victim impact statement. The probation officer also does an extensive search of the defendant’s prior criminal record as well as his or her family, financial, and education history. The officer can also include other items in the PSI such as additional physical and mental health history.

At the pre-sentence investigation interview, the attorney representing the defendant can also submit other extraneous materials to be included in the officer’s report to the court. These items can include character reference letters, additional psychological evaluations that have been conducted prior to the investigation, and additional statements by the defendant related to his or her version of the case. It is prudent for the defense attorney to contact all of the people that have submitted character letters that ensure that their letter is an accurate reflection of their feelings regarding the defendant. Many times, the probation officer, and/or the prosecutor will also reach out to these folks, so it is best to confirm their character statements at the outset.

At the conclusion of the PSI, the officer in charge prepares a written report which includes his or her assessment of the defendant’s risk to re-offend, positive and negative factors to consider, and a supervision plan should the Court choose to place the defendant on probation. For cases involving restitution, the PSI will also include a restitution recommendation.

Taking Responsibility in an Open Plea

Defendants entering an open plea to the court waive their right to a jury trial. So, when conducting the pre-sentence investigation, the probation officer will confirm that the defendant is taking responsibility for his or her crime. This is an important part of the process. If the defendant has entered a plea of guilty to the crime in court but then denies the offense at the PSI, the officer will stop the investigation and return the case to court. One of the primary advantages, from a strategic standpoint, of entering an open plea is to communicate to the court that the defendant is taking on full responsibility for the crime. This is done in hopes that the court will take that into consideration when determining an appropriate sentence. It is this attitude of acceptance that typically garners the best results in an open plea. This is sometimes referred to in layman’s terms as throwing oneself on the “mercy of the court.”

Getting the Most Out of the PSI

Defense attorneys whose clients have opted for an open plea and a pre-sentence investigation can help their cause by supplementing the officer with as much positive information as possible. As mentioned above, it’s important for an attorney to gather additional character letters and to explore outside mental and psychological evaluations that might be conducted to be included in the report to the court. Additionally, if the defendant has already been serving community service, taking rehabilitative classes, or saving toward restitution, you should explain that and provide records to back it up.

Once the PSI is completed and submitted to the judge, the court will set the case for a sentencing hearing. At the sentencing hearing, testimony from both the defendant and character witnesses will be taken into consideration. But, it’s the pre-sentence investigation report that will typically be the most important item that the court reviews.

Not all cases involve a pre-sentence investigation. But, when a PSI is conducted, it can provide the most thorough review of a case and defendant’s background aiding in a court to assess a fair and just punishment.

“Buyer’s Remorse”—Rolling the Dice on Plea Deals

The Court of Criminal Appeals recently handed down an opinion concerning a motion for a new trial based on evidence obtained from a co-defendant’s motion to suppress hearing. The issues facing the Court were whether the defendant, who had recently entered into a plea deal, satisfied the requirements for granting a new trial on the basis of such evidence; and, whether the defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was properly brought before the court.

State of Texas v. Arizmendi (Court of Criminal Appeals, 2017)

The Facts — Trial Court Granted Defendant’s Motion for New Trial in the “Interest of Justice.”

Rosa Arizmendi, Defendant, was convicted (after pleading guilty) for being in possession of more than 400 grams of methamphetamine with intent to deliver after officers stopped her co-defendant’s vehicle, of which she was a passenger. Both Defendant and Co-defendant were arrested as a result of the stop. On April 28, 2015, Defendant entered into a plea deal, receiving twenty-five years confinement and a $5,000 fine. Additionally, Defendant voluntarily waived her right to appeal.

Six days later, a hearing for a motion to suppress was held regarding Co-defendant’s case. The video of the stop was introduced into evidence, and the arresting officer testified, noting that he initially noticed the vehicle because it looked clean and subsequently stopped the vehicle for crossing over the while line delineating the roadway from the improved shoulder. However, the trial court concluded that Co-defendant’s vehicle was not in any violation of Texas law. The Court explained that the vehicle only came in close proximity of and possibly touched the inside portion of the white line, which is not a violation of Texas law. Thus, granting Co-defendant’s motion. See, State v. Cortez, 501 S.W.3d 606 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016).

Based on this information, Defendant filed a motion for new trial, “in the interest of justice,” alleging the verdict in her case was contrary to the law and evidence. Defendant’s motion referred to Co-defendant’s hearing alleging a lack of probable cause or other lawful reasons for the stop. Furthermore, Defendant asserted the officer’s testimony was new evidence not available at the time of Defendant’s guilty plea. Defendant’s counsel further asserted that because she failed to tell Defendant that a motion to suppress was an option, Defendant received ineffective assistance.

The State argued that Defendant waived her right to appeal as a result of the plea deal and had not presented any new evidence likely to result in a different ruling. Noting, all evidence could have been discovered had Defendant been diligent. The State further asserted that Defendant was merely suffering from “buyers remorse.” Moreover, the State contended Defendant’s ineffective assistance claim was not apart of the original motion for new trial and, therefore, was untimely. However, the trial court rejected these arguments and granted Defendant’s motion for new trial “in the interest of justice,” and the State appealed.

The Court of Appeals Affirmed the Trial Court’s Decision — Holding Defendant Satisfied the Requirements for Granting a New Trial Based on Newly Discovered Evidence.

On appeal the State contended that the trial court abused its discretion in granting Defendant’s motion and further reiterated its previous assertions.

The Court of Appeals, however, rejected the State’s arguments. The Court held Defendant’s motion was not barred because the trial court implicitly granted Defendant permission to appeal when it set Defendant’s motion for hearing. The Court also determined Defendant did, in fact, present new evidence. The video of the stop did not contain audio and, therefore, the testimony was new because it was not available at the time of Defendant’s plea. Accordingly, since the Court found there was new evidence they declined to rule on the ineffective assistance claim and affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

The Court of Criminal Appeals Reversed and Remanded — Holding Defendant did not Satisfy the Requirements for Relief.

The State appealed again and the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the lower courts’ decisions. Here, Defendant pled guilty pursuant to a plea deal and after learning of her co-defendant’s favorable outcome Defendant filed a motion for new trial. The Court concluded that Defendant’s assertions were without merit because her failure to discover “new evidence” was a result of her own lack of due diligence. Furthermore, the “new evidence” Defendant asserts was either cumulative, collateral, or would not have brought about a different result.

To obtain relief the Court noted Defendant must satisfy the following four-prong test:
• The newly discovered evidence was unknown or unavailable to Defendant at the time of trial;
• Defendant’s failure to discover or obtain the new evidence was not due to the defendant’s lack of due diligence;
• The new evidence is admissible and not merely cumulative, corroborative, collateral, or impeaching; and,
• The new evidence is probably true and will probably bring about a different result in a new trial.

Defendant asserted the following as newly discovered evidence:
• The trial court’s ruling on Co-defendant’s motion to suppress;
• The testimony of the arresting officer at Co-defendant’s suppression hearing; and,
• The arresting officer’s statement about Defendant’s vehicle being a clean vehicle.

First, the Court explained that the trial court’s ruling on the motion to suppress was not evidence; it was only a legal determination. And, furthermore, even if it was considered evidence Defendant’s failure to discover was due to her own lack of due diligence. Second, the officer’s testimony was evidence, but aside from the testimony regarding the clean vehicle, it was merely cumulative and Defendant had access to the video, which conveyed the very same facts as the testimony. Furthermore, the Court determined the officer’s testimony regarding the clean vehicle was collateral, at best. The Court explained that the officer’s subjective intent was irrelevant to the ruling. Moreover, Defendant could have sought a police report or even filed her own motion to suppress to obtain such evidence—just as her co-defendant did. Finally, the Court concluded that Defendant’s ineffective assistance claim was not properly before the court because it was not made within thirty days of the judgment and, therefore, was untimely.

Thus, all evidence Defendant asserts as “new” was either cumulative, collateral, or would not have brought about a different result. As such, the Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions and remanded with instructions to reinstate Defendant’s judgment and sentence.

This case prompted two concurring opinions and a dissent. See below.

Arizmendi Hervey Concurrence
Arizmendi Newell Concurrence
Arizmendi Alcala Dissent

Takeaways

It is paramount that defense attorneys review all evidence and timely seek any additional evidence that may be relevant to a client’s case. Moreover, it is crucial for attorneys to provide clients with all possible options and outcomes before entering into a plea deal. Here, Defendant had all the same options as her co-defendant; however, Defendant was not properly counseled and, consequently, Defendant will spend twenty-five years in prison while her co-defendant remains free.

Texas is home to many animal owners. Whether residents own household pets, like cats and dogs, or livestock, most animal owners are responsible and ensure that their “fur babies” are provided with proper care. However, there are times when cases arise involving individuals who abuse or neglect their animal or someone else’s. If this occurs, there may be grounds for a police investigation and serious criminal charges. So, what conduct falls under animal cruelty laws in Texas and what are the potential criminal consequences?

What Constitutes Animal Cruelty?

Animal cruelty laws in Texas apply to domesticated animals, which are further divided into two categories:

• Livestock animals
• Non-livestock animals

Cruelty to non-livestock animals accounts for a majority of animal cruelty cases and, therefore, a proper understanding of Section 42.092 of the Texas Penal Code, governing animal cruelty to non-livestock animals, is essential.

Non-livestock animals are generally what most people would consider “household pets.” Section 42.092 defines a non-livestock animal as a domesticated living creature, including any stray or feral cat or dog, and a wild living creature previously captured. This would include dogs, cats, rodents and reptiles. Generally speaking though, animal cruelty laws do not apply to wild animals that are not captured—such as deer, wild hogs, mountain lions, etc.

Section 42.092 encompasses an array of behavior that is considered animal cruelty to non-livestock animals. To be charged with animal cruelty under this section, a person must have performed these “cruel acts” intentionally, recklessly or knowingly. The types of cruel behavior the statute covers include:

• Torturing an animal (causing unjustifiable pain or suffering);
• Killing an animal in a way that is considered cruel or leads to serious bodily injury of the animal;
• Administering poison to an animal;
• Failing to provide a reasonable amount of food, water, care and shelter to an animal;
• Abandoning an animal;
• Transporting or confining an animal in an unreasonable or cruel way;
• Causing an animal to engage in a fight with another animal (if the animal is not a dog—dog fighting has its own Section in the penal code);
• Without the owner’s consent, causing bodily injury to an animal;
• Using a live animal as a lure in a dog race; or,
• Seriously overworking an animal.

Some of these definitions are broad and can potentially cover a wide range of abuse.

Potential Consequences

Misdemeanor Animal Abuse

A person who intentionally, knowingly or recklessly fails to provide a reasonable amount of food, water, care and shelter; abandons an animal; transports or confines an animal in a cruel manner; causes bodily injury to an animal; or seriously overworks an animal will be punished with a Class A misdemeanor.

An individual convicted of a Class A misdemeanor may be sentenced to up to a year in county jail and a fine of up to $4,000. Additionally, a person who has been previously convicted two times for animal cruelty will have their punishment enhanced to a state jail felony. (see below for definition)

Felony Animal Abuse

3rd Degree Felony: A person who intentionally, knowingly or recklessly tortures; kills; administers poison to or causes serious bodily injury of an animal may be guilty of a Third Degree Felony. An individual convicted of a Third Degree Felony may be sentenced from 2 years to 10 years in prison and a fine up to $10,000.

A person who intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes one animal to fight with another; or, uses a live animal as a lure could be punished with a State Jail Felony. A State Jail Felony may be sentenced from 180 days and up to two years in a state jail facility and a fine up to $10,000.

Additionally, a person who has been previously convicted two times for animal cruelty will have their punishment enhanced by one felony degree.

Defenses

Section 49.092 of the Texas Penal Code provides several defenses to prosecution of animal cruelty of non-livestock animals. For example, it is a defense if:

• The animal is killed in self-defense;
• The animal is killed or injured upon discovering the animal injuring or killing the person’s livestock or damaging the person’s crops;
• The conduct occurs for legal hunting or agriculture practices; or
• The conduct occurs for true scientific research.

While there are many potential defenses, a conviction for animal cruelty can be extremely serious and it may jeopardize a person’s future animal ownership rights. Thus, it is essential to seek help if you have or may be charged with animal cruelty.  Contact our team of criminal defense attorneys for a free consultation about your animal cruelty allegation.