## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS

N O . P D - 0519- 07

A N TH O N Y W A SY LINA , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON S TATE ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW

I N CAUS E N O. 1 2 - 0 5 - 0 0 2 6 3 - CR FROM THE TW ELF TH CO URT O F AP PEALS

AND ERS ON CO UNTY J OHNS ON , J. , f

i l e d a c onc ur r i ng o pi ni on i n w hi c h C OCHR AN , J. , j oi ne d. C O N C U R R I N G O P I N I O N As we sa id in Ha ll v . S

tat e , 225 S.W .3d 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007), lesser- included off enses must be ascerta inable from the face of the i ndictment. The issue of w hether a jury -cha

rg e instruction

o n a g iv e n le s s e r - in c lu d e d o f f e n s e is a p p r o p r iate is a s e p a r a te ma tt e r a n d , u n li k e d e te r

mi n a ti on of what lesser

offe nses ar e included in the charg ed offense, that issue is dependent on the state of the evidenc e at the c onclusion of the g uilt phase. By its verdict, the jury

found that appe llant ought to have been a war e o f a s u b stantial and2

un jus tif ia ble ri sk tha t Gu thr ie (o r so me on e e lse ) wo uld be inj ur e d b y his a c tio ns , b ut h a d f

a ile d to pe rc e ive it. F a ilu re to pe rc e ive a ri sk may a ri se fr om ma ny c ir c ums tanc e s. Pe rh a ps a pp e lla nt d id not perc eive the r isk beca use of a ng er a nd fea r. Guthrie wa s highly

intox icated, ha d been ha

rassing appellant a

nd his friends f

or an e x tended period of time, a

nd had indirec tly

acc used them of be ing liar s when he said that he wa s following them t o make sure that they lived wher e they

had told him they

did. Arg uably , Guthrie slande red appellant and his friends when he told Foster that they wer e poac hers. F inally , he beg an shooting at them from a

position hi dden by

darkne ss while they

talked in t h ei r o wn drivewa y . A natura l

rea ction to such behavior is ang er at the insinuations and fea r at be ing the targ et of g unfire. Appellant, F oster, and B ry an co n fr onted Guthrie a bout his attack on the g roup. When Gu thr ie sa

w two g un s, he pu t his ow n pis tol in his fr on t po c ke t–p ut a wa y , bu t sti ll qu ic kly

a nd e a sil y available . Appellant asse rted a uthority over G uthrie by

telling him to lie on the g round and to stay the re wh ile the y

su mmo ne d th e sh e ri ff

. T he ri sk that a

pp e lla nt fa ile d to pe rc e ive wa s st a nd ingon ly four or five fee t f rom a hig hly

intox icated a

nd bellige rent individual who had a lrea dy demonstrated irrational be havior. Ag itated by the impending arr ival of law e n fo rc em ent and highly intox icated, Guthrie a lso failed to per ceive a risk: lung ing at a man holding a g un is not a g ood idea. A ra tional jury

coul d h av e found t hat Guthrie’ s death wa s an ac cident pre cipitated by Guthrie’s ow n actions. An equa lly rational jury

would have suf

ficient e vidence to find that appellant failed to pe rce ive a substantial and unjustifiable risk and is g uilty of cr iminally

neg lige nt homicide. Th e c ha lle ng e d in str

uc tio n w a s p ro pe rl y

g ive n. Ijoi n th e op ini on of the Court
. Filed: January

28, 2009 Pub lis h