## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S

O F T E X A S

NO. P D-1649-13

DONNIE LEROY KACHEL, Appellan t

v.

THE S TATE O F TEXAS

ON AP P ELL ANT’S P ETIT ION F OR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

F ROM THE TE NTH COURT OF A P P EALS

MCLENNAN C OUNTY

R I C H A R D S O N

, J

. , f

i l e d a n o p i n i o n c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t a n d d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t

, i n

w h i c h J O H N S O N

, J

. , j o i n e d

.

C O N C U R R I N G A N D D I S S E N T I N G O P I N I O N

I a g r e e w i t h t h e m a

j o r i t y ’ s o p i n i o n t h a t

, b e c a u s e t h e r e w a s s o m e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e

a p p e l l a n t e x p o s e d h i m s e l f o n l y t o a n a d u l t a n d d i d n o t k n o w a c h i l d w a s p r e s e n t

, h e w a s

e n t i t l e d t o a j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n o n t h e l e s s e r

- i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e o f i n d e c e n t e x p o s u r e

. I c o n c u r

i n o u r h o l d i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n d e n y i n g a p p e l l a n t s u c h a n i n s t r u c t i o n

. H o w e v e r

,

I p a r t w a y s w i t h t h e m a

j o r i t y ’ s d e c i s i o n t o r e m a n d t h e c a s e b a c k t o t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s f o r

a h a r m a n a l y s i s u n d e r A l m a n z a v

. S t a t e

, 6 8 6 S

. W

. 2 d 1 5 7

, 1 7 1 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 1 9 8 5 )

.2

G i v e n t h e f

a c t s o f t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c a s e

, I b e l i e v e t h a t t h i s C o u r t i s a b l e t o c o n d u c t ( a n d

e s s e n t i a l l y h a s c o n d u c t e d ) s u c h a n a n a l y s i s

. I n a r r i v i n g a t o u r c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e r e w a s s o m e

e v i d e n c e o f

t h e l e s s e r o f

f e n s e

, a n d b e c a u s e t h e j u r y h a d o n l y t h e o p t i o n o f e i t h e r a c q u i t t i n g

t h e a p p e l l a n t o r c o n v i c t i n g h i m o f t h e g r e a t e r o f f e n s e

, t h e h a r m a n a l y s i s h a s a l r e a d y b e e n

d o n e

. T h e r e f

o r e

, t o b e m o r e j u d i c i a l l y e f f i c i e n t

, I w o u l d r e v e r s e t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s a n d

r e m a n d t h e c a s e b a c k t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o r a n e w t r i a l

.

E r r o n e o u s r e f

u s a l t o g i v e a r e q u e s t e d i n s t r u c t i o n o n a l e s s e r

- i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e i s c h a r g e

e r r o r s u b j e c t t o a n A l m a n z a h a r m a n a l y s i s

. S a u n d e r s v

. S t a t e

, 8 4 0 S

. W

. 2 d 3 9 0

, 3 9 2 ( T e x

.

C r i m

. A p p

. 1 9 9 2 ) ( c i t i n g t o A l m a n z a v

. S t a t e

, 6 8 6 S

. W

. 2 d 1 5 7

, 1 7 1 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 1 9 8 5 ) )

.

U n d e r t h a t a n a l y s i s

, r e v e r s a l i s r e q u i r e d i f t h e e r r o r r e s u l t e d i n s o m e h a r m t o t h e

a c c u s e d

— “ s o m e ” m e a n i n g “ a n y

. ” A r l i n e v

. S t a t e

, 7 2 1 S

. W

. 2 d 3 4 8

, 3 5 1 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

.

1 9 8 6 ) ( e n b a n c )

. 1

I n det er m ini ng whet her the re was “so m e har m ,” the act ual degree of har m m ust be det er m ine d by 1

bal anc ing (1) the ent ir e j ury cha rge, (2) the st at e of the eviden ce, inc lud ing the con te st ed is sue s and wei ght

of pro bat ive evide nce , (3 ) t he a rgum ent of cou nse l, a nd ( 4) any oth er re le vant i nfo rmati on reveal ed by the

re cor d of t h e t r i a l a s a whol e. Alma nza

, 686 S.W .2d at 171. Even a cur sor y app li cat ion of the se fa ct ors

sup por ts a fi ndi ng of “so m e” har m in thi s case

. Fir st , the abse nce of a less er

- inc lud ed ins tr uct ion fr om the

j ury cha rge sup por ts a fi ndi ng of “so m e” har m

. Sec ond, the eviden ce tha t app el la nt did not know a chi ld was

pre sen t, whic h we have dec ide d was some eviden ce to sup por t the inc lus ion of a le sse r- inc lud ed off ens e in

the j ury cha rge, suppor ts a fin din g of “so m e” har m . T hir d, by not in cl udi ng the le sse r- inc lud ed off ens e of

ind ece nt exp osu re in the j ury cha rge, app el la nt’ s cou nse l was pre cl ude d fr om re que st ing suc h a compromise

verdi ct fr om the j ury. Fi nal ly, whil e i t i s t rue th at th e j ury se nte nce d ap pel la nt to si xty years for thi s thi rd

degree fe lon y con victi on of ind ece ncy wit h a chi ld (a ppe ll ant had two pri or fe lon y off ens es whic h enh anc ed

his puni shment ra nge), the sever it y of the app el la nt’ s sen te nce giv en by t he j ury is not one o f t h e spe ci fi c

fa ct ors to wei gh unde r Alma nza

, and I do not agree tha t it is re le vant eno ugh to overco m e a fi ndi ng of “so m e”

(i .e., “an y”) ha rm in t his ca se.3

W e h a v e r o u t i n e l y f

o u n d s o m e h a r m

, a n d t h e r e f o r e r e v e r s e d

, w h e n t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a s

f a i l e d t o s u b m i t a l e s s e r

- i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e t h a t w a s r e q u e s t e d a n d r a i s e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e

w h e r e t h a t f

a i l u r e l e f t t h e j u r y w i t h t h e s o l e o p t i o n e i t h e r t o c o n v i c t t h e d e f e n d a n t o f t h e

g r e a t e r o f

f e n s e o r a c q u i t h i m

. S a u n d e r s

, 9 1 3 S

. W

. 2 d a t 5 7 1

. O r d i n a r i l y

, i f t h e a b s e n c e o f t h e

l e s s e r

- i n c l u d e d o f

f e n s e i n s t r u c t i o n l e f

t t h e j u r y w i t h t h e s o l e o p t i o n e i t h e r t o c o n v i c t t h e

d e f e n d a n t o f t h e c h a r g e d o f f e n s e o r t o a c q u i t h i m

, s o m e h a r m e x i t s

. I d

. T h e h a r m f

r o m

d e n y i n g a l e s s e r o f

f e n s e i n s t r u c t i o n s t e m s f

r o m t h e p o t e n t i a l t o p l a c e t h e j u r y i n t h e d i l e m m a

o f c o n v i c t i n g f

o r a g r e a t e r o f

f e n s e i n w h i c h t h e j u r y h a s r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t o r r e l e a s i n g

e n t i r e l y f r o m c r i m i n a l l i a b i l i t y a p e r s o n t h e j u r y i s c o n v i n c e d i s a w r o n g d o e r

. M a s t e r s o n v

.

S t a t e

, 1 5 5 S

. W

. 3 d 1 6 7

, 1 7 1 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 2 0 0 5 ) ( f o l l o w i n g S a u n d e r s ’ r a t i o n a l e )

.

I n t h i s c a s e

, t h e r e i s a d i s t i n c t p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e j u r y

, b e l i e v i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t

i n d e c e n t l y e x p o s e d h i m s e l f

, b u t g i v e n o n l y t h e o p t i o n t o c o n v i c t h i m o f i n d e c e n c y w i t h a

c h i l d b y e x p o s u r e

, c h o s e t o f i n d h i m g u i l t y o f t h a t g r e a t e r o f f e n s e r a t h e r t h a n t o a c q u i t h i m

o f a n y o f

f e n s e

, e v e n t h o u g h t h e j u r y h a d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t t h a t h e r e a l l y c o m m i t t e d t h e

g r e a t e r o f

f e n s e o f i n d e c e n c y w i t h a c h i l d b y e x p o s u r e

. S e e

, e

. g

. , S a u n d e r s

, 9 1 3 S

. W

. 2 d a t 5 7 1

( c i t i n g B e c k v

. A l a b a m a

, 4 4 7 U

. S

. 6 2 5

, 6 3 4 ( 1 9 8 0 ) )

.

I n J u s t i c e D a v i s ’ d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n

, h e s t a t e d t h a t “ b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d t h e

j u r y t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o n v i c t K a c h e l s o l e l y o f t h e l e s s e r

- i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e o f i n d e c e n t

e x p o s u r e ( a C l a s s B m i s d e m e a n o r )

, w h i c h i t r e a s o n a b l y c o u l d h a v e d o n e b a s e d o n t h e4

e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l

, i t s e r r o n e o u s f a i l u r e t o s u b m i t t h e l e s s e r

- i n c l u d e d i n s t r u c t i o n

c r e a t e d ‘ s o m e ’ h a r m

. ” K a c h e l v

. S t a t e

, 2 0 1 3 W L 5 7 8 1 6 8 6

, a t 5 ( T e x

. A p p

. – W a c o 2 0 1 3 )

( D a v i s

, J

. , d i s s e n t )

. I a g r e e

.

A l t h o u g h “ i t i s n o t o r d i n a r i l y t h i s C o u r t ’ s b a i l i w i c k t o p a s s u p o n q u e s t i o n s o f h a r m

, ” 2

I s u b m i t t h a t p e r h a p s w e s h o u l d d o s o u n d e r l i m i t e d ( a n d c l e a r ) c i r c u m s t a n c e s

, s u c h a s i n t h i s

c a s e w h e r e t h e f

i n d i n g o f h a r m i s a f

o r e g o n e c o n c l u s i o n

. T h e e r r o n e o u s f a i l u r e t o g i v e a

l e s s e r

- i n c l u d e d o f

f e n s e i s n o t p e r s e h a r m f

u l

. H o w e v e r

, i n t h i s c a s e

, s e n d i n g t h e c a s e b a c k 3

t o t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s t o c o n d u c t a h a r m a n a l y s i s t h a t w e h a v e s u b s t a n t i a l l y a l r e a d y d o n e

s e e m s t o b e a w a s t e o f j u d i c i a l r e s o u r c e s

. I w o u l d r e v e r s e t h e c o n v i c t i o n a n d r e m a n d t h e

c a s e b a c k t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o r a n e w t r i a l

.

F I L E D : M a r c h 1 8

, 2 0 1 5

D O N O T P U B L I S H

Van Hoang v. Sta te

, 939 S.W .2d 593 (T ex. Cri m

. App. 1996 ) (c it ing to Owens v. Sta te

, 827 S.W .2d 2

911, 917 (T ex. Cri m . App. 1992 ); Sae nz v . St ate , 843 S.W .2d 2 4, 29 (T ex. Cri m . App. 1992 ).

T her e ar e cas es, suc h as when an int er vening le sse r off ens e is sub mit te d, wher e the er ron eou s 3

fa il ure to giv e an ins tr uct ion on a le sse r- inc lud ed off ens e is con si der ed har m le ss. See Saun der s v. Sta te

, 913

S.W .2d 564, 572 (T ex. Cri m

. App. 1995 ) (ho ldi ng tha t the j ury’s fa il ure to fi nd an int er ven i ng le sse rinc lud ed off

ens e— one tha t is bet ween the re que st ed le sse r off ens e and the off

ens e cha rge— m ay, in

app rop ri at e ci rc um st anc es, re nde r a fa il ure to sub m it the re que st ed le sse r off ens e har m le ss. ); acc ord

, Ma st ers on v. Sta te

, 155 S.W .3d 1 67 ( T ex. Cri m . App. 2005 ). Se e al so, Vasq uez v. Sta te

, 389 S.W .3d 361

(T ex. Cri m

. App. 2012 ) (f ind ing tha t any er ror in a j ury cha rge tha t did not inc lud e the abs tr act def ini ti on

of the la w of p a r t i e s i n the app li cat ion par agraph of the cha rge was har m le ss unde r the Alma nza rul e and

overr uli ng Joh nso n v. St ate , 739 S.W .2d 2 99 ( T ex. Cri m . App. 1987 ) to the ext ent th at it suggests a p er se

fi ndi ng of ha rm).