Are v alo v . S tate , 943 S.W .2d 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). 1 Id. at 890-92 (Mc Cormick, P.J ., dissenting) , and id. at 892-94 (Me yers, J., diss enting ). 2 

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

OF TE XAS
N O . P D - 0137- 09

STE V EN G R EY , 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 FROM THE THI RD CO URT O F AP PEALS

HA YS CO UNTY C OCH RAN , J ., file d a c onc ur r ingopi nio n. OP IN ION I a g re e th a t A re v a lo w as w r ongl ydeci ded , t hat t he fourdi s s ent er s i n A re v a lo w ere 1

cor r ect , t hat t he doct r i ne has pr oven unw or kabl e, and t hat i t has l ed t o unj us t , unant i ci pat ed

2

re su lts. I jo in th e m a

jo rityin o v e rru lin g it. B ut I w oul d go fur t her an d p rovi de s om e gui dance t o t he benc h and baron w hen aGre y ConcurringOpinion Page2

Hu tc h v . S

tate , 922 S.W .2d 166, 170 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). 3 Courts across the nation have noted the c onfusion and unce rtainty relating to submission 4 of instructions on lesser- included off enses. See, e .g., State v. Je ffries , 430 N.W.2d 728, 730 (I ow a 19 88 ) ( no tin gthat th e le sse r- inc lud e d- of fe ns e do c tr ineis “ fr a

ught w ithc on fu sio n b e c a us e of thedo c tr ine ’s e lus ive ne ss i n it s d e fi nit ion and a pp lic atio n. ” ); State v. Fike , 757 P.2d 724, 725 (K an. 19 88 ) ( “ the reareve ry fe w a re a s o f t he c ri min a l la

w whic h h ave g ive n th e a pp e llate c ourt s mor e dif fi c ult y tha n th e pr ob le m of

le sse r o ff e ns e s” ); State v. Keffer , 860 P.2d 1118, 1128 (Wy o. 1993) (“ the unce rtainty

evolvingfrom various prece dents and va riable a pplication sug g ests the nece ssity for a restate ment of the rule . This demand eme rg es fr om a nee d for a clarified rule that can c onsistently

be applied by

courts in deter

mining: (1) what is a lesser -included of fense ; (2) when should a c ourt instruct on it; and (3) whe n challeng ed, what is the proper a ppellate standa

rd of re view.”)
. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art. 37.08. 5 Id. art. 37.09. 6 trial c o u rt m ust gr ant a r eques t by ei t her t he defe ns e or St at e fora l es s er - i ncl uded i ns t r uct i on
a n d w h e n it m ay in c lu d e su c h a n in stru c tio n , w ith o r w ith o u t a r e q u e st. T h e g o a l o f

ju ry in stru c tio n s is to g u id e th e ju ry ’s d e lib e ra tio n s in re a c h in g a n a c c u ra te
ver di ct bas ed upon t he fac t s and t he l aw . T he s ubm i s s i on of i ns t r uct i ons on l es s er - i ncl uded 3

o f f e n se s h a s b e c o m e a q u a g m ire f o r t ria l a n d a p p e llate c o u rts w h e n it sh o u ld b e a re lativ e ly sim p le a f

f a ir d e sig n e d to e n su re th e in teg rityo f th e f a c tf in d in g p ro c e ss w ith o u t u n d u ly i nter feri ng w i t h the part i es’ l egit i m at e st rat egies
. 4 F ir st, the p arti es a n d the tri al j u d g e m u st d eterm ine if a p arti cu lar of fe n se is a lesse ri ncl uded off

ens e of t he cha r ged off ens e. A r ti cle 3 7. 08 s t at es , “I n a pr os ecut i on for an offe ns e w i t h l es s er i ncl uded off ens es, the j ur ym ayfi nd t he def endantnot gui l t yof t he great er offense, bu t gu i l t y of any l esser i ncluded off ense. ” S econ d, art i cl e 37
. 09 defines a

5 l esser -i ncluded off

ense. W e hav e recent l y rei t erat ed our fi deli t yt o the “cog nate pl eadings” 6Gre y ConcurringOpinion Page3

Ha ll v . S tate , 225 S.W .3d 524, 534-35 (Te x . Crim. App. 2007). 7 That is, the trial judg e must g ive a r equeste d instruction. 8 Bi gn all v . S tate , 8 8 7 S
. W
. 2 d

2 1 , 2 3 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 1 9 9 4 ) ( ci t i n g Rousseau v. State, 9 855 S.W .2d 666, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993), and Ro y ste r v . S tate , 622 S.W .2d 442, 446-47 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (plurality op. on reh’ g )). Ha ll , 2 5 5 S
. W
. 3 d

at5 3 6 (c i t i n g Bi

gn all , 8 8 7 S
. W
. 2 d

at2 3 , an d

qu o t i n g Fo re

st v . S tate , 10 989 S.W .2d 365, 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999)). appr oach t ow ar d l es s er - i ncl uded off ens es , i n w hi ch l es s er - i ncl uded off ens es ar e det er m i ned fr om t he s t at ut or yel ement s of t he off ens e as m odi fi ed b y the fa ct s al l eged w i t hi n t he in d ictm e n t. 7 Second, t he par t i es and t he t r i al j udge m us t det er m i ne w het her t her e i s evi dence i n t he

r ecor d t hat s uppor t s gi vi ng a par t i cul ar l es s er - i ncl uded i ns t r uct i on t o t he j ur y . A defe ndant i s “ent i t l ed t o” an i ns t r uct i on on a l es s er offe ns e i f t he proof for t he off ens e cha r ged i ncl udes 8 th e p ro o f n e c e s s a ry t o e s ta b lis h th e le s s e r- in c lu d e d o f f e n s e a n d th e re is “ s o m e e v id e n c e . . . in th e re c o rd th a t w o u ld p e rm it a ju ry ra tio n a llyto f in d th a t if th e d e f

e n d a n t is g u ilt y , h e is gui l t yonl yof t he l es s er offe ns e. ” T he def endantm ust p o int t o s peci fi c evi dence i n t he 9

r ecor d t hat negat es t he gr eat er offe ns e and r ai s es t he l es s er - i ncl uded offens e. A s w e s t at ed i n H a ll , t he def

endantm ayr el y on “any t hi ng m or e t han a s ci nt i l l a of e vi dence ” i n r eques t i ng an i ns t r uct i on, but he i s ent i t l ed t o s uch an i ns t r uct ion ( and t he t r i al j udge must i ncl ude a req u ested instruction ) on lyw h en the e v iden ce estab li sh es th e lesse r-i n clud ed o ff en se a s “‘a vali d , ra t i on al al t ernat i ve to t he ch arged o ffen se. ’” T hu s, i f a de fend ant r equ est s a 10 par t i cul ar l es s er - i ncl uded i ns t r uct i on and he s et s out , on t he r ecor d, t he s peci fi c evi dence t hatGre y ConcurringOpinion Page4

Ha mp ton v . S

tate , 1 0 9 S
. W
. 3 d

4 3 7 , 4 4 0 -4 1 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 3 ) ( “[ I ] ti s n o ten o u gh 11 that the jury

may disbelieve c rucia l evidenceperta ining to the greater off ense, but rather, ther e mus t beso me e vid e nc e dir e c tly g e rm ane to t

he le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e fo r t he fi nd e r o f f

a c t to consider be fore an instruction on a lesse r-include d offe nse is war rante d.”). Flores v . S

tate , 2 45 S.W. 3d

43 2, 43 9 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 08 ) ( a de fe nd ant i s e nti tle d to 12 a jury charg e on a le sser-inc luded offe nse if he me ets two requir ements: (1) he reque sts an instruction on a lesser -included of fense of the c harg ed off

ense; a nd (2) ther e is some evidenc e that if he is guilty , he is guilty only of the lesse r-include d offe nse). Are v alo , 943 S.W .2d at 890-92 (Mc Cormick, P.J ., dissenting) , and id. at 892-94 13 (Meyers, J., diss enting ). In overr uling our prior dec ision in Are v alo , we should also af firm the rea soning a s well as the r esult in the court of a ppeals’s opinion in Are v alo
. Se eAre v alo v . S tate , 918 S.W .2d 46, 50 n.6 (Tex. App.—Houston [1 Dist.] 1996) (“ We note that there is no st prohibition ag ainst a trial cour t submit ting a

ny lesser inc luded offe nses re quested by the defe ndant. Royster

mere ly provides that a trial court may not refuse any

defe nse re quest for a jury instruction on a lesser

included off

ense when the two- prongtest is met.”), rev’d, 943 S.W .2d 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). s uppor t s a r at i onal bas i s for r ej ect i ng t he gre at er offe ns e but s uppor t i ng t he l es s er offe ns e, 11
t he t r i al j udge er r s i f he ref u ses to instr uct t he j ur yon t hat l es s er offe ns e. O f cour s e, t he 12

co n v erse is no t t rue
– the tri a l ju d g e d o es n o t err i n su b m it ti n g an instruction o n a lesse ri ncl uded off

ens e eve n w hen t he def endantdoes not poi nt t o sp eci fi c evi dence r ai s i ng t hat l es s er offe ns e and nega ti n g the gr eat er one. A t r i al j udge m ay s ubm i t an i ns t r uct i on on a l es s er - i ncl uded i ns t r uct i on w hen r eques t ed by t he defe ndant ( or St at e) even t hough he i s not

r equi r ed t o do s o under t he R oys t er - R ous s eau t es t
. T hus , t he t r i al j udge er r s onl yw hen he 13

re f u se s to su b m it an in stru c tio n w h e n th e d e f e n d a n t re q u e sts o n e a n d p o in ts to th e sp e c if ic

e v id e n c e th a t n e g a te s th e g re a te r o f f e n s e b u t s u p p o rt s th e le s s e r o f f e n s e . T he S tat e i s equal l yent i t l ed t o an i ns t r uct i on on a l es s er - i ncl uded off ens e i f t he p ro se c u to r se ts o u t o n th e re c o r d th e sp e c if ic e v id e n c e th a t h e is re ly in g o n to su p p o rt itsGre y ConcurringOpinion Page5

See Ke e blev . U

nite d S tates, 412 U.S. 205, 208 (1973) (“ Although the lesser inc luded 14 offe nse doctrine develope d at common law to assist the prose cution in case s wherethe evidenc e failed to e stablish some element of the of fense orig inally

charg ed, it is now beyond dispute that thede fe nd ant i s e nti tle d to an in str uc tio n o n a

le sse r i nc lud e d o ff

e ns e if thee vid e nc e wo uld permit a jury

rationally

to find him guilty

of the lesse r off

ense a nd acquit him of the greater.” ) (f oo tno te omi tte d) ; Ha mp ton v . S tate , 165 S.W .3d 691, 694 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (in deciding whether a lesser -included jury

instruction is required, the Royster-R ousseau tw o- pr on gte st “applies r eg ardle ss of whethe r the instruction is reque sted by the State or by

the def endant.” ). See, e .g., State v. Keffer , 860 P.2d 1118, 1133 (Wy o. 1993) (f inding that a

lesser- included instruction is available in equa l measure to the defe nse and the prosec utor). See ge nerally, Catherine L . Carpente r, TheAll or Not hing D oc tri nein C

rim ina l Ca se

s: 15 Indepe ndent Trial Strategy or Game smanship Gone Awry? , 26 A MER . J. C R IM . L . 257, 258 (S pring19 99 ); Sta tev . W hittle , 752 P.2d 489, 492-93 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985) (findingthat defe ndant’s all-or -nothingstrategy relieve d the trial cour

t of the re quirement of instruc ting on le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e ); Sta tev . A rn old, 542 P.2d 37, 38 (Ariz. Ct . App. 1975) (trial court should not be require d, su a s po nte , to ins tr

uc t on le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e s b e c a

us e de fe ns e strategy may be to sec ure a

complete a cquittal). In the ca pital-murder

setting, how ever , the trial c ourt mus t g ivea

le sse r- inc lud e d in str

uc tio n th at a llo ws thejur

y a no n- c a pit a l op tio n whe ne ve r i t is supported by

the evidenc e. Bec k v. A labama , 4 47 U. S. 6 25 (1 98 0) . T his “ a ll o r n oth ing ” ta c tic is prohibited by

the fe dera l constituti on in capital ca ses, eve n though a state statute might authorize or eve n requireit. Id. at 638. B ut the Supreme Court expressly rese rved the question of wh e the r “ theDu e Pr oc e ss C la us e wo uld

re qu ir e theg ivi ngof

su c h [le sse r- inc lud e d- of

fe ns e instructions] in a nonca

pital case .” Id. at 63 8 n .1 4. Ma ny low e r- c ourt

c a se s h ave de c lin e d to extend the Bec k

rea soning a

nd result beyond the ca

pital context. See, e .g., United States v. Bec kford, 966 F. Supp. 1415, 1433 (E.D. V a. 1997) ( decliningto ext end Bec k to the crime of murde r i n f

ur the ra nc e of a c ontin uin gc ri min a l e nte rp ri se ); Gesc hwendt v. Ryan , 967 F.2d. 877, 883-84 (3d Cir. 1992) ( decliningto ext end Bec k to require instruction of “not guilty by rea son of s ubm i s s i on. A nd agai n, t he t r i al j udge m ay subm i t such an i nst ruct i on at t he S t at e’s request

14
even t hough he i s not r equi r ed t o do s o under t he R oys t er - R ous s eau tes t. B u t som eti m es n e ith e r th e S tat e n o r t h e d ef en se re q u ests an instruction o n a lesse ri ncl uded off

ens e eve n t hough t he l aw and t he evi d en ce w o u ld cl ear l ys uppor t one. E ach p artym ay inv o k e a n “a ll o r no thing ” strateg ythat p erm it s itto f o reg o instruction s o n a lesse ri ncl uded off

ens e, i n eff

ectfor ci ng t he j ur yt o choos e bet w een c onvi cti on of t he gr eat er
o f f e n se o r o u trig h t ac q u itt a l. 15Gre y ConcurringOpinion Page6

insanity”). See People v . Barton , 9 06 P.2 d 5 31 , 5 41 (C a l. 1 99 5) (“ [D]e fe nd ant w a s p repa re d to ro ll 16 the dice in a

high stakes g ame of

chanc e, bettingthat the jury , fac ed with the choic e of c onvicting him of murder or

acquittinghim entirely , would find him not guilty .”); State v. Eastman , 831 P.2d 555, 560 (I daho 1992) ( “a de fenda nt might choose to foreg o an opportunity to be convicte d of a le sser include d offe nse in order to roll the dice in the hope that the jury might ac quit him/her on thegre ate r c ha

rg e ” ); Sta tev . B oe

gli n , 731 P.2d 943, 948 (N.M. 1987) (statingthat the “def endant is bound by

his decision . . . to ga

mble on a verdict of ac quittal, and the district court did no t c omm it r e ve rs ibl e e rr or by ins tr uc tin gthejur

y a s d e fe nd ant d e sir e d” ); Hammond v

. Pe op le , 423 P.2d 331, 332 (Colo. 1967) (findingthat the def endant “ in effe ct g ambled on all or no thi ngand

los t and c ann ot n owbe he ard

to c omp la in” ); People v . Gramc , 647 N.E.2d 1052, 1054 (I ll. App. Ct. 1995) (“The de fense strategy was in leg al jarg on ‘to roll the dice’ ”). Kin na mo n v . S

tate , 791 S.W .2d 84, 96 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (“Eve n wher e a le sser 17 i n cl u d edo ff

en s e i s s u p p o rt edb y

th e e v i d en ce , th e f

ai l ure o f d ef

en s e c o un s el t o re qu es ta c h ar ge on the offe nse or pr operly object to its omiss ion constitutes a waiver .”), overruled on othe r grounds , Cook v. State, 88 4 S. W.2 d 4 85 , 4 88 -9 2 ( Te x. Crim. Ap p. 19 94 ); see M ohammed v

. Sta te , 1 27 S.W. 3d

16 3, 16 9 ( Te x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [1s t D ist .] 20 03 , p e t. r e f' d) ; Da rn es v . S tate , 11 8 S. W.3 d 9 16 , 9 21 (T e x. Ap p. —Amari llo 20 03 , p e t. r e f' d) ; Pa z v . S tate , 44 S.W .3d 98, 100 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [14 th D ist .] 20 01 , p e t. d ism ’d); He rn an de z v . S tate , 10 S.W .3d 812, 821 (T e x. Ap p. —B e a

umo nt 2 00 0, pe t. r e f' d) ; se eals o S tatev . Prib il , 395 N.W.2d 543, 549 (Neb. 19 86 ) ( no tin gthat e ith e r t he State or

thede fe nd ant m ay

re qu e st a le sse r- inc lud e d- of

fe ns e ins tr uc tio n whe n it

is s up po rt e d b y

theple a din g s a

nd thee vid e nc e , b ut, a

bs e nt s uc h a

re qu e st, it is n ot e rr or

fo r t he c ourt to f a il t o g iveon e e ve n th ou gh it wa s w arr ante d) ; Look v. Amaral , 725 F.2d 4, 9 ( 1st Cir. 1984) (state trial c ourt was not constitutionally require d to give a lesser

included-of

fense instruction when def ense c ounsel waive d the instruction). Se e, e .g., Cha o v . S

tate , 6 04 A. 2d

13 51 , 1 35 8 ( De l. 1 99 2) (e xpla ini ngthat th e burd e n to 18 reque st lesser-inc luded-off ense instruc tions is properly place d on defe nse counse l, for it is they U nder t hi s “gambl i ng” or “par t y aut onom y ” ra t i onal e, t he par t i ci pant s m aygambl e, 16 but t heydo s o at t hei r ow n per i l
. I f t he defe ns e and pr os ecut i on do not r eques t an i ns t r uct i on on a l es s er - i ncl uded off ens e, t heyhave w ai ved t h eir righ ts t o compl ai n on appea l t hat t he j udge w as r equi r ed t o gi ve one. A nd, beca us e t hi s “al l or not hi ng” model is a v al i d t r i al 17
st rat egy , defe nse cou nsel i s n ot i neff ect i ve for decli ning t o request a l esser -i ncluded -offense i ns t r uct i on. 18Gre y ConcurringOpinion Page7

wh o d e te rm inetr ia l ta c tic s and pr e suma bly a c t in a c c or da nc e wi th a

fo rm ulate d s tr ate gy

); In re Tro mb ly , 627 A.2d 855, 857 (Vt. 1993) ( trial court ne ed not include instruction on lesser

inc lud e d o ff

e ns e on its own v oli tio n if

thede fe nd ant h a d n ot r e qu e ste d it or ob je c te d to its omi ssi on ); He nd

e rso n v . S tate , 664 S.W .2d 451, 453-54 (Ar k. 1984) (“ as a matter of tria l strategy , competent c ounsel may elec t not to request an instruction on lesser included off

enses . . . . The succ ess or fa ilure of a particula r trial strate gy

is not a measure of an attorney ’s c omp e te nc e ” ); Commonwealth v. Pagan , 625 N.E.2d 579, 581 (Ma ss. App. Ct. 1994) (counsel wa s n ot i ne ff

e c tiv e in f a ili ngto a sk

fo r m ans la

ughte r i ns tr

uc tio n) ; People v . Romero, 694 P.2d 1256, 1269 (Colo. 1985) (trial c ourt is not obligated to instruct on a lesser of fense “unless either the prosec ution or the defe nse re quests such instruction” a nd “[i] n the abse nce of

a re quest by

the defe ndant, it may

rea sonably

be assumed that he elec ted to take his cha nce on a n outright a c qu itt a l or

c onvic tio n o f t

he princ ipa l c ha

rg e rathe r t

ha n to pr ov idethejur

y wi th a n o pp or tun ity to c onvic t on

a le sse r o ff e ns e ” ); Sta tev . B ar tle tt , 355 S.E.2d 913, 919 (W.Va. 1987) (whe re de fe nd ant m a de a

str ate g ic c ho ic e no t to re qu e st a le sse r- inc lud e d in str

uc tio n, he c ann ot c la im that the maneuve r denie d him a fair trial). Se eHu mp hr ie

s v . S tate , 615 S.W .2d 737, 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (pane l op.) (trial 19 jud g e may

su bmi t le sse r- inc lud e d- of

fe ns e ins tr

uc tio n e ve n o ve r d e fe nd ant’ s o bje c tio n whe n it is su pp or te d b y thee vid e nc e ); Mc Qu e e n v . S tate , 984 S.W .2d 712, 717 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1998, no pet.) (“ I f thereis sufficient evide nce to support a conviction on a lesse r included offe nse, the trial c ourt is authorized to charg e the jury on that offe nse, eve n if the def endant doe s no t r e qu e st the iss ue and

e ve n o ve r t

he de fe nd ant’ s o bje c tio n. ” ); se eals o Pe op le v. Novak, 643 N.E.2d 762, 769 (I ll. 1994), abrogated on other grounds by Pe ople v. Kolton , 848 N.E.2d 950 (I ll. 2006). In Novak, the I llinois Supreme Court explained why an instruction on a lesse ri n c l u d e d o f f e n s e s e r v e s th e i nt e r e s t s o f

th e d e f e n s e , p r o s e c ut i o n , an d

s o c i e ty: A lesser included off

ense is a va luable tool for a defe ndant, a pr osecutor, and so c ie ty g e ne ra lly . F or

a de fe nd ant, an in str

uc tio n o n a

le sse r i nc lud e d o ff

e ns e provides an importa

nt third option t o the jury . I f the jury believes that defe ndant was guilty

of something , but uncer

tain whether

the cha rg ed off ense ha d been proved, it might convict def endant of the lesser offe nse, rather than c onvict or acquit him of the greater off ense. . . . For a prose cutor, a

defe ndant may

not automatically

g o fre e if the e vidence fails to prove a

n essential ele ment of the greater off ense. F or society , the punishment that it i mposes on a criminal may confor m more ac curately

to the O n th e o th e r h a n d , th e trial j u d g e is n o t re q u ire d to p lay t h is g a m b lin g g a m e . In h is di s cr et i on he may , w i t h or w i t hout r eques t ( and even overt he par t i es ’ obj ect i on) , i ncl ude an in stru c tio n o n a les se r-in c lu d e d o f f e n se in th e in ter e st o f

ju stic e a n d to u p h o ld th e in teg rity

o f the jury sy stem
. H e m ay d o so w h en ev er a p arti cu lar view o f th e e v iden ce w o u ld su p p o rt 19Gre y ConcurringOpinion Page8

crime a ctually

committed. Id
. Se e, e .g., Sta tev . W

att s , 963 P.2d 1219, 1221-22 (I daho Ct. App. 1989) (in prose cution for ag gravated batter

y on peac e off

icer , ag gravated assault on pea ce of fice r, and attempted ag gravated assault on pea ce of fice r, instruction on lesser inc luded offe nses of a g gravated batter y and ag gravated assault wa s not error , even though neither pr osecution nor de fenda nt reque sted su c h in str uc tio n) ; State v. Rodriguez , 4 29 A. 2d 91 9, 93 1 ( Conn. 19 80 ) ( tr ia l c ourt may su bmi t lesser- included off

ense to the jury

even in the a

bsence of a pa

rty ’s re quest). See Hu mp hr ie

s, 61 5 S. W.2 d at 73 8; se eals o F or d v . S tate , 3 8 S. W. 3 d

8 3 6 , 8 4 0 ( T e x. 20 Ap p. —H ou sto n [14 Di st. ] 200 1, no pe t.) (“ thetr ia l c ourt ha s th e duty

and re sp on sib ili ty

to th instruct on the ‘lawapplicable to the case .’ In discharg ing this duty , the trial cour t is authorized to su a s po nteinclude a c harg e on a le sser off ense; a trial court is not restric ted to submitt ing lesser inc luded offe nses only when the de fenda

nt has properly

reque sted them. This is true eve n if the def endant objec ts to submi ssion of the cha rg e to the jury .”) ( citations omitt ed). Carpente r, The All or Nothing Doctrine in Criminal C ases , su pr a no te 15 at 27 2; see 21 als o Sta tev . B ar tle tt , 355 S.E.2d 913, 918-19 (W. Va. 1987) ( quoting a n earlier ca se for

the pr op os iti on

that a tr ia l c ourt

“ may , w ith out r e qu e st, if it think[s] th e int e re st o f jus tic e and a fa ir trial ca ll for it,” instruct the jury on a lesser

included off

ense when supported by

the law a nd e vid e nc e , “ but it

is n ot b ound

to d o s o unle ss a sk e d; b ut, if a sk e d to g ivesu c h p ro pe r s pe c if ic instructions, it must do so.”). This discretion should be exercise d liberally toward the inclusion of instructions on 22 lesser- included off

enses to uphold the integrity of the sy stem. As we have noted be fore , I f no cha rg e [on the lesser include d offe nse] is given, then the jury has two options which ar e equa lly

distasteful. The f

irst option is to vote not guilty in a situation convicti o n of t he l es s er - i ncl uded off ens e as a val i d, r at i onal al t er nat i ve t o t he cha r ged

o f f e n se . H is dis c re tio n sh o u ld b e u p h e ld , p a rticu lar lyif h e n o tes , o n th e re c o rd , the sp e c if ic 20 evi dence and i nfer ence s t hat coul d s uppor t acqui t t al of t he gr eat er offe ns e and c onvi ct i on of th e le s s e r- in c lu d e d o f

f e n s e . T hi s “t r i al i nt egr i t y ” v iew s at i s fi es “t he des i r e t o avoi d compromi s e ver di ct s w hi ch

a re b a se d o n sy m p a th ya n d p re ju d ice b a lan c e d b y t h e e q u a llyc o m p e lli n g d e sire to a v o id

coer ced a nd unw ar r ant ed ver di ct s . ” T hus , t he t r i al cour t has cons i der abl e di s cr et i on t o gi ve 21 ( o r n o t g i v e ) i n s t r u c t i o n s o n a l e s s e r - i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e r e g a r d l e s s o f

t h e p a r t i e s ’ d e s i r e s . He 22Gre y ConcurringOpinion Page9

wher e they

believe the defe ndant committed [the lesser offe nse]. The other option is t o v oteguil ty

of [the gre ate r o ff

e ns e ], a n o ff e ns e the y be lie ve thede fe nd ant d id no t c omm it. El dre d v . S tate , 578 S.W .2d 721, 723 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979), ov e rru le d in pa rt b yHa ll v . S

tate , 225 S.W .3d 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Gre yv . S tate , 269 S.W .3d 785, 786 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008). 23 w i l l not er r i n doi ng s o unl es s no r at i onal t r i er of fact coul d s i m ul t aneous l yr ej ectt he gr eat er offe ns e and f

i nd t he evi dence s uffi ci ent t o s uppor t convi ct i on of t he l es s er offe ns e. T h is c a se is a g o o d e x a m p le o f w h e n th e trial ju d g e h a s g re a t d isc re tio n a n d p ro p e rly

exer ci s es i t
. H er e, t he evi dence s how ed t hat appe ll ant as s aul t ed t he vi ct i m dur i ng an
a rg u m e n t in th e v ictim ’s f ro n t y a rd
. H e p u t o n e h a n d o n h e r th ro a t an d c h o k e d h e r w h ile

23 he r epea t edl ypunched he r i n t he ey e. She t es t i fi ed t hat s he coul dn’ t br eat he, s he fe l t num b, and–fora mom ent

– ev ery thing “w en t black
. ” S h e d id n o t i m m ed iat elysee k m ed ical att ent i on, b u t s h e re p o rt e d th e a s s a u lt to th e p o lic e th e n e x t m o rn in g . A n offi cert es t i fi ed t hat t he vi ct i m had a brui s ed and s w ol l en ey e and s poke w it h a

r as pyvoi ce. H e s aw a fi nger - or t hum bpri n t o n o n e s i de of he r neck. T he vi ct i m t ol d t he offi cert hat appel l ant had a ls o “s t r angl ed” he rw i t h her neckl ace , and t he off i cers aw t he i m pr i nt of a neckl ace on t he vi ct i m ’ s neck as w el l
. A n E M T w ho came t o t he pol i ce s t at i on
a l s o s a w l i g a t u r e ma r k s o n t h e v i c t i m’ s n e c k , o s t e n s i b l yc a u s e d b yt h e n e c k l a c e . He char act er i zed t he vi ct i m ’ s i nj ur i es as “s i gni fi cant
. ” A ppel l ant al s o t es t i fi ed and a dm i t t ed t hat , aft er t he vi ct i m began punchi ng hi m i n t he fac e and gr abbi ng hi m ar ound t he nec k, heGre y ConcurringOpinion Page10

Id . at 787. 24 F or e xamp le , th e rewa s n o te sti mony fr om a pp e lla nt t hat “ Idid no t us e my

ha nd a s a 25 de a dly we a po n, ” no r d id h e of

fe r a ny e xpe rt te sti mony

that c ho kin gthene c k w itha sin g le ha nd is not using that ha

nd as a de adly

wea pon, nor did any

of the State’s w itnesses admit to that re a c h e d u p a n d g r a b b e d h e r n e c k , ap p ly in g p re ss u re to h e r p u lse p o in ts w ith m y t hu m b and t w o forem ost fi ng ers . M y i ntent i on w as t o m ake her di zzy so sh e w o u ld b e k n o c k e d o f f b a lan c e . I b e g a n strik in g h e r w ith m yrig h t h a n d in t he fa ce i n t he exa ct m anners he cont i nued t o as s aul t m e. 24 Fr om t hi s evi dence , a r at i onal tr ie r of fa ct coul d i nfert hat appel l ant us ed hi s hand “w h ich in the m an n er o f it s u se o r i n tend ed u se w as c ap ab le o f c au sing seriou s b o d il yinjury

o r d e a th , b ystra n g lin g ” th e v ictim , e x a c tly a s a lleg e d in th e a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt i n d ictm e n t. B ut anot her r at i onal t r i er of fact coul d i nfert hat appel l ant di d notu se h is h a n d a s a d e a d ly

w eapon: he di d not caus e deat h or s er i ous bodi l y i nj ur y ; he di d not i nt end t o caus e dea t h or

se rio u s b o d ily in

ju ry ; a n d th e m a n n e r i n w h ich h e “ c h o k e d ” o r “ stra n g led ” th e v ictim w ith

o n e h a n d w a s n o t lik e ly to c a u s e d e a th o r s e ri o u s b o d ily in ju ry. T h ere fo re, t h e tri al j u d g e, i n h is disc re tio n , inclu d ed an instruction o n the lesse ri ncl uded off

ens e of s i m p le a ssaul t
. A ppel l ant obj ect ed–he w as gambl i ng on “al l or not hi ng”–but he does not have any i ns t i t ut i onal or due- pr oces s “r i ght ” t o t hat gambl e. T he t r i al j udge may , i n hi s di s cr et i on, i ncl ude s uch an i ns t r uct i on w hen one vi ew of t he evi dence

w oul d s uppor t a fi ndi ng of t he l es s er offe ns e w hi l e nega t i ng t he gr eat er one. O f cour s e, had

a p p e llan t re q u e ste d a n in stru c tio n o n sim p le a ss a u lt, th e trial j u d g e w a s n o t r equi r ed to in c lu d e it b e c a u se th e re w a s n o a f f irm a tiv e o r sp e c if

ic e v id e n c e th a t ap p e llan t d id n o t u se h is h a n d a s a d e a d lyw e a p o n . B u t th e e v id e n c e w o u ld su p p o rt a c o n v ictio n f o r sim p le a ss a u lt 25Gre y ConcurringOpinion Page11

possibili ty

on cross-e x amination. The c ourt of appe als relied upon our decision in Ha mp ton v . S tate , 109 S.W .3d 437, 440 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003), in rejec ting the State’ s argument “that the jury might havedisbelieved c ru c ia l e vid e nc e re g ard inga pp e lla nt’ s u se of

his ha nd a s a de a dly we a po n” a s in su ff

ic ie nt t o support a rational finding that appellant did not use his hand as a deadly wea pon. Grey , 269 S.W. 3d at 78 8. B ut Hampton expli citly stated, We have he ld that a two-prongtest must be met beforea jury charg e instruction on a lesser -included of

fense must be g iven: 1) the lesse r-include d offe nse must be inc lud e d w ith in t

he pr oo f n e c e ssa

ry to e sta bli shtheof

fe ns e c ha rg e d; a nd 2) so me evidenc e must exi st in the record that if the def endant is guilty , he is guilty only of the lesser offe nse. Hampton , 109 S.W .3d at 440 (e mphasis added) . And that is true. That is the test for when the tr ia l ju dg e is required

to include an instruction on a le sser-inc luded offe nse. In Hampton , we cited to Arevalo, which had, in e ffe ct, held that a trial judge may g ivea le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e instruction only

when he must

do so. That is prec isely

wher e we went wr ongin Are v alo , and that is why we pr operly

reje ct it now. A trial judg e er

rs by including instruc tions on a lesser- included off ense when no 26 rational viewof that evide nce w ould support a ver dict on the lesser -included, thus providingan avenuefor a

“compr omise” ver dict that is based solely on sy mpathy and pre judice. See People v

. Boettche r , 505 N.E.2d 594, 597-98 (N.Y. 1987) ( noting that “ it is the duty of the jury

not to reac h compromise verdicts based on sy mpathy for the de fenda

nt or to appea se holdouts, but to render a just verdict by

applying the fac ts it finds t o the law it is charg ed.”)
. ( w i t hout t he us e of a deadl yw eapon) r at her t han aggr avat ed as s aul t
. H er e, t he t ot al i t yof t he evi dence l eads t o t w o pl aus i bl e concl us i ons : appel l ant ei t her di d or di d not us e hi s hand as a dead ly w eapon. E i t her fi ndi ng i s r at i onal
. B ot h vi ew s ar e w i t hi n t he r eal m of

r eas onabl en ess. E it her fi ndi ng i s s uppor t ed bys uffi ci ent evi dence
. T he j ur ydeci ded t hat

a p p e llan t d id n o t u se h is h a n d a s a d e a d lyw e a p o n , an d , the re f o re , itc o n v icte d h im o f

sim p le

as s aul t
. T hi s i s not a ver di ct bas ed o n m ere sy m p at hyor pr ej udi ce; i t i s bas ed upon one rati o n al view o f th e totali tyo f th e e v iden ce . T h e tri al j u d g e p rop erlyp rese rve d the ju ry ’s 26

r ol e as t he ul t i m at e fa ct
- fi nder byal l ow i ng i t t o cons i der t he l es s er - i ncl uded off ens e. I n s um , I agr ee w i t h t he maj or i t yi n over r ul i ng A re v e lo , and I l ook for w ar d t o t he dayGre y ConcurringOpinion Page12 in w h ich o u r l aw o n lesser-inclu d ed -of fe n se ju ryinstructio n s is sim p ler an d m o re
c o mmon s e n s i c a l , a d a yi n whi c h t r i a l j u d g e s a r e n o t l e f ti n f e a r a n d t r e mbl i n g c o ncer ni ng th e ir d e c is io n to in c lu d e s u c h in s tr u c tio n s e v e n th o u g h th e ya re n o t m a n d a te d
.

Fi l ed: N ovember 18, 2009 P ub l i sh