ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED

NO. 12-15-00001-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 12 TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS

OSCAR PERKINS, APPELLANT

VS.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

ON APPEAL IN CAUSE NUMBER 114-1209-14 FROM THE 114 TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

OF SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS HONORABLE CHRISTI KENNEDY, JUDGE PRESIDING

APPELLANT’S BRIEF

JAMES W. HUGGLER, JR. 100 E. FERGUSON, SUITE 805 TYLER, TEXAS 75702 903-593-2400 STATE BAR NUMBER 00795437

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ACCEPTED 12-15-00001-CR TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS 7/22/2015 9:05:58 PM CATHY LUSK CLERKI D E N T I T Y O F P A R T I E S A N D C O U N S E L

APPELL ANT: Osca r Pe rkins

APPELL ANT’S T RIAL COUNS EL M. Bre nt Rate kin 422 S. S pring S tr ee t Tyl er , Te xas 7570 2

APPELL ANT’S APP ELLATE COUNS EL Jam es Huggl er 100 E. Fe rguso n, Suit e 805 Tyl er , Te xas 7570 2 903- 593- 2400 903- 593- 3830 (f

ax)

APPELL EE The S ta te o f T ex as

APPELL EE’S TRIAL CO UNSEL Le slie Mc Le an Jaco b Putm an Ge rald P riv in Sm it h Co unty Crim inal Dist ric t Att or ney ’s Offi ce 100 N. Bro adwa y, 4 t h F lo or Tyl er , Te xas 7570 2

APPELL EE’S APPELL ATE CO UNSEL Mike W est Sm it h Co unty Crim inal Dist ric t Att or ney ’s Offi ce 100 N. Bro adwa y, 4 t h F lo or Tyl er , Te xas 7570 2

iiT A B L E O F C O N T E N T S P A G E

ID ENTIT Y O F PARTI ES AND COUNS EL

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

TABLE OF AUTHORI TI ES

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

ST ATEMENT OF THE CAS E

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

IS SUES P RESENTED

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

I S S U E O N E : T H E R E W A S L E G A L L Y I N S U F F I C I E N T E V I D E N C E T O F I N D A P P E L L A N T G U I L T Y O F T H E O F F E N S E O F A S S A U L T

.
I S S U E T W O : I T W A S E R R O R F O R T H E T R I A L C O U R T T O D E N Y A P P E L L A N T ’ S M O T I O N F O R D I R E C T E D V E R D I C T

.
I S S U E T H R E E : T H E T R I A L C O U R T E R R E D I N N O T I N C L U D I N G A L E S S E R I N C L U D E D O F F E N S E I N T H E J U R Y C H A R G E

.
ST ATEMENT OF FACTS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

ARGUMENT

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

IS SUE ONE, RES TATED

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

IS SUE TW O, RES TATED

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 A. St andard of

Re vie w

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 B. Law Re quiri ng Disp lay o f W ea po n

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 C. Applic at io n t o The se Fact s

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 D. Co nclusio n

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

iiiIS SUE THREE, RESTAT ED

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

A. Law o n Le sse r-inc lude d O ffe nses

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 B. Analysi s

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 C. Rem ed y and r el ie f r eq uest ed

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

PRAYER FO R RELI EF

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

CERTIF ICATE OF SERVI CE

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

CERTIF ICATE OF COMPL IANCE

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

ivT A B L E O F A U T H O R I T I E S

S T A T U T E S
T E X

. C O D E C R IM

. P R O C

. A N N

. art

. 37. 08 (W est 2 013)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
T E X

. C O D E C R IM

. P R O C

. A N N

. art

. 37. 09 (W est 2 013)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
T E X

. P E N A L C O D E A N N

. §1 2. 42(d) (W est 2 013)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3
T E X

. P E N A L C O D E A N N

. §2 2. 01 (W est 2 013)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 3 , 7, 1 3

C A S E S Cavazo s v

. St at e , 382 S. W. 3d 377 (Te x. Cri m. App. 2 012)

. . . . . . . . . . 12 Cle wis v. S ta te , 922 S. W. 2d 126 (Te x. Cri m. App. 1 996)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Fue nte s v

. St at e , 991 S. W. 2d 267 (Te x. Cri m. App. 1 999)

. . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Hall v. S ta te , 225 S. W. 3d 524 (Te x. Cri m. App. 2 007)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Jackso n v

. Virg inia
, 443 U.S

. 307, 9 9 S. Ct

. 2781 , 6 1 L. Ed.2 d 5 60 (197 9)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Jo hnson v. S ta te , 871 S. W. 2d 183, 1 86 (Te x. Cri m. App. 1 993)

. . . . . . . 6 Madde n v

. St at e , 799 S. W. 2d 683 (Te x. Cri m. App. 1 990)

. . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Mor eno v

. St at e , 755 S. W. 2d 866 (Te x. Cri m. App. 1 988)

. . . . . . . . . . . 10 Shar p v

. St at e , 707 S. W. 2d 611 (Te x. Cri m. App. 1 986)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Sw ee d v

. St at e , 351 S. W. 3d 63 (Te x. Cri m. App. 2 011)

. . . . . . . . . . 12, 1 3 Tibb s v

. Flo rida
, 457 U.S

. 31, 1 02 S. Ct

. 2211 , 7 2 L. Ed.2 d 6 52 (198 2)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Turro v

. St at e , 867 S. W. 2d 43 (Te x. Cri m. App. 1 993)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Wi lli ams v. S ta te , 235 S. W. 3d 742 (Te x. Cri m. App. 2 007)

. . . . . . . . . . 10 Wi lli ams v. S ta te , 937 S. W. 2d 479 (Te x. Cri m. App. 1 996)

. . . . . . . . . . . 7

R U L E S
T E X

. R. A P P

. P. 9 .4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

vT E X

. R. A P P

. P. 3 8

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

viNO. 1 2-15 -000 01-CR

OS CAR PERKI NS, § IN THE CO URT OF APPEALS APPELL ANT § § VS. § 12 T H J UDI CIAL DI ST RICT § THE S TATE OF TEXAS, § APPELL EE § TYLER, T EXAS

A P P E L L A N T ’ S B R I E F

T O T H E H O N O R A B L E C O U R T O F A P P E A L S A N D T H E J U S T I C E S T H E R E O F :

C ome s n ow Osca r Pe rkins (“ Appe llant ”)

, by and thro ugh his at to rne y

of rec or d, Jam es Hugg le r, and pursuant to the prov isio ns of T E X

. R. A P P

.

P R O C .3 8, et se q. , re spe ct fully subm it s t his b rie f o n app ea l.

S T A T E M E N T O F T H E C A S E

Appe llant was indict ed i n ca use number 114-12 09-1 4 a nd c harge d

w i t h the thir d de gre e fe lo ny of fe nse of Assault

. I CR 11. 1 T E X

. P E N A L

C O D E A N N

. §2 2. 01(a )(1) and (b)( 2) (W est 2013 ). The punishme nt range

was enhance d to a habit ual fe lo ny of f e nd e r by the inclusi on of tw o

1 T he Clerk’ s Record is designated “ CR” w ith ro m an nu m eral pr eced ing “ CR” indicating the cor rect volum e and an arab ic

nu m eral follo w ing “C R” specify ing the cor rect p age in th e re cor d. 1seq uent ial fe lo ny co nvic ti ons. I CR 8; T E X

. P E N A L C O D E A N N

. § 1 2 .4 2(d)

( W est 2013 ). A jury was sel ec te d, and fo llo wing ev ide nce and arg ume n t

of co unsel fo und Mr. Pe rkins guil ty of the of fe nse as indict ed

. I CR 96; IX

RR 74. 2 The punishme nt phase was to the co urt. Fo llo wing ev ide nce and

arg ume nt of co unsel, the court assesse d a life sent enc e. I CR 100- 103; X

RR 18-1 9. No t i c e of appe al was ti me ly file d. I CR 106. This brie f is

ti me ly file d on or befo re July 22, 2015 fo llo wing pro pe r ex te nsio n by this

Court

.

I S S U E S P R E S E N T E D

I s s ue O ne : T he r e w a s l e g a l l y i ns uf f i c i e nt e v i d e nc e t o f

i nd A p p e l l a nt g ui l t y o f t he o f

f e ns e o f a s s a ul t

.
I s s ue T w o : I t w a s e r r o r f o r t he t r i a l c o ur t t o d e ny A p p e l l a nt ’ s m o t i o n f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t

.
I s s ue T hr e e : T he t r i a l c o ur t e r r e d i n no t i nc l ud i ng a l e s s e r i nc l ud e d

o f f e ns e i n t he j ur y c ha r g e

.

2 Refer ence s to the Reporter’ s Record a re ma de using “RR” with a roma n numera l prec eding “RR” indicating the volume and a n ara bic numera l following “ RR” specify ing the corr ect pa g e. 2S T A T E M E N T O F T H E F A C T S

Osca r Pe rkins was indict ed in cause numbe r 1 1 4-12 09-1 4 and

charg ed wit h the thir d de gre e fe lo ny of fe nse of Assault by causing bo dily

injury to Pat sy Pe rkins, his est range d wif e, by imp e d i ng h er nor mal

bre at hing and cir culat io n of the blo od by a p p l y ing pre ssure to her nec k.

I CR 11. T E X

. P E N A L C O D E A N N

. §2 2. 01(a )(1) and (b)( 2) (W est 2013 ). The

thir d de gre e fe lo ny punishme nt range was enhance d to a habit ual fe lo ny

of fe nder by the inclusi on of tw o seq uent ial fe lo ny co nvic ti ons. I CR 8; T E X

.

P E N A L C O D E A N N

. §1 2. 42(d) (W est 2013 ). Mr. Pe rkins had re je ct ed a ple a

of fe r of t we nty y ea rs prio r to t rial

. VI RR 14-1 5.

Pat sy Pe rkins is the est range d wif e of Osca r Pe rkins. VII RR 18-1 9.

He had m ov ed o ut of

t hei r hom e appro xim at el y fo ur mo nths prio r t o the

act s alle ge d, appar e nt l y d ue to an affa ir by Mr. Pe rkins, or at le ast the

co nclusio n by Mrs. Pe rkins that he had had an affa ir. VII RR 19, 28. Mrs.

Pe rkins was invo lve d in a car acci de nt which to ta le d her suburban on July

2, 2014

. VII RR 21, 23-2 4. Bec ause the car was in bo th the ir name s, bo th

signa ture s we re re quire d to be on the set tl em ent che ck. VII RR 24. Afte r

a ti t l e l o a n w as paid, the set tl em ent amo unt was $130 0. VII RR 27-2 8.

3The y had sev er al co nve rsat io ns by phone abo ut the set tl em ent

. VII RR

25. Many of the se co nve rsat io ns ende d in arg ume nt, cursing and hanging

up by o ne of

t he part ie s. VI I RR 28

.

The day of the i n cide nt, the y had a brie f co nve rsat io n and Mrs.

Pe rkins to ld her husband that she woul d not give him any of t he mo ney ,

and Mr. Pe rkins te lli ng h e r no t t o cash the che ck. VII RR 30. That

aft er noo n, Mr. Pe rkins cam e to the ir house

. VII RR 32. S he le t him in

and the y spo ke in th e l i v i n g ro om are a. VII RR 32. At this po int, Mrs.

Pe rkins alle ge d her husband hit her wit h a pill ow fiv e ti me s, the n wit h a

fist
, and that bo th cause d pain. VII RR 34. The y we nt to the be dro om to

ge t the che ck and that is whe n she te sti fie d that he p ut her in a

cho keho ld. VII RR 36. She te sti fie d that it cause d pain, but she co uld sti ll

b r e at he. VII RR 37-3 8. She to ld him that she lo ve d h i m a nd t hi s

appar ent ly cause d him to sto p. VII RR 38. She we nt to a nei ghbo r’s house

and co ntac te d the po lic e. VII RR 40-4 1. She saw that his car had le ft and

re turne d to the ir hom e. VII RR 41. Mrs. Pe rkins was ta ken to a hospi ta l.

VII RR 42.

O t her wit nesse s te sti fie d re gar ding the inve sti gat io n, her me di c a l

4tr ea tm ent and her discussi ons wit h the Dis t r i c t Att or ney ’s Offi ce

re gar ding h e r d esi re not to pro sec ute her husband. Fo llo wing the

e v i de nce and arg ume nt of co unsel, Mr. Pe rkins was fo und guil ty of the

of fe nse as indict ed

. I CR 96; I X RR 74.

During the sent enc ing phase , Mr. Per kins ent er ed a pl ea o f true to

ea ch enhance me nt p arag raph. X RR 7-8. Fo llo wing ev ide nce and

arg ume nt of co unsel, the court assesse d a life sent enc e. I C R 100- 103; X

RR 18-1 9. A furt her d i s c u ssio n of the re le vant fact s is include d in the

arg ume nt sec ti on of

t his b rie f.

S U M M A R Y O F A R G U M E N T

The re are tw o set s of issue s fo r this Court to co nside r. The firs t and

sec ond issue rais ed re gar d the le gal su f f i c i e ncy of the ev ide nce and

whe the r the tr ial co urt er re d in de nying the mo ti on fo r a dire ct ed ve rdic t.

The final issue re gar ds the tr ial co urts fail ure to co nduct the

re quire d t est t o de te rmi ne if a le sse r i nclude d c harge i s a ppro pria te a nd

the e rro r by de nying that c harge

.

5A R G U M E N T

I s s ue O ne , R e s t a t e d : T he r e w a s l e g a l l y i ns uf f i c i e nt e v i d e nc e t o f

i nd A p p e l l a nt g ui l t y o f t he o f f e ns e o f a s s a ul t

.
I s s ue T w o , R e s t a t e d : I t w a s e r r o r f o r t he t r i a l c o ur t t o d e ny A p p e l l a nt ’ s m o t i o n f

o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t

.

A

. S t a nd a r d o f R e v i e w
Appe llant c o n te nds that the ev ide nce is le gal ly insuffic ie nt to

suppo rt the ve rdic t. The sta ndard f o r re vie wing a le gal suffic ie ncy

chall eng e is whe the r any rat io nal tr ie r of fact co uld have fo un d t h e

ess ent ial el em ent s of the of fe nse be yo nd a re aso nable do ubt. Se e Jackso n

v. V i r gini a , 443 U.S

. 307, 315- 16, 99 S. Ct. 2781 , 2786 -787 , 61 L. Ed. 2d

560 (197 9); see also Jo hnson v. S t a t e , 8 7 1 S. W. 2d 183, 186 (Te x. Crim

. App. 1993 ). The ev ide nce is ex ami ned i n t he lig ht mo st fav or able to the

ve rdic t. Se e Jackso n , 443 U.S

. a t 3 2 0 , 99 S. Ct. at 2789 ; Jo hnson
, 871

S. W. 2d at 186. A succe ssful le g a l s uf f i c ie ncy chall eng e wil l re sult in

re ndit io n of an acqui tt al by the re vie wing co urt. Se e Tibb s v. Flo rida
, 457

U.S

. 31, 4 1-42 , 102 S. Ct

. 2211 , 2217 -218 , 72 L. Ed. 2 d 6 52 (198 2).

A chall eng e to the tr ial co urt’ s ruling on a mo ti on fo r dire ct ed ve rdic t

is, in act ualit y, a chall eng e to the suffic ie ncy of the ev ide nce to suppo rt the

6co nvic ti on. The re fo re , the sta ndard of re vie w is the same as that used in

r e v i ew ing the suffic ie ncy of the ev ide nce

. Madde n v. St at e , 799 S

. W

. 2 d

683, 6 86 (Te x. Crim

. App. 1990 ); Wi lli ams v. S ta te , 937 S. W. 2d 479, 4 82
(Te x. Cri m. App. 1 996)

.

B

. E l e m e nt s o f t he O f f e ns e

A pe rso n co mm it s an of fe nse if the y inte ntio nally or know ingl y cause

bo dily injury to a fam ily me mbe r by inte ntio nally
, know ingl y or re ckle ssly

imp ed ing the nor mal bre at hing or cir culat io n of the blo od of the pe rso n by

apply ing pre ssure to t he i r t hro at or nec k. T E X

. P E N A L C O D E A N N

. §2 2. 01(a )(1) and (b)( 2) (W est 2012 ). The el em ent re lat ed to the ir

re lat io nship w as not c ont est ed

.

C

. A p p l i c a t i o n t o T he s e F a c t s

At the co nclusio n of the St at e’ s case , Mr. Pe rkins soug ht an

inst ruct ed ve rdic t on this issue

. VII I RR 85. The case co me s do wn to the

cre dibi lit y of Pat sy Pe rkins. She was the onl y wit ness who te sti fie d

re gar ding cho king. Wi tho ut her te sti mo ny, the St at e’ s pro of f a i l s

. The

issue is that her cre dibi lit y was draw n into ques ti on re pe at ed ly, and on a

7var ie ty o f i ssues.

Mrs. Pe rkins te sti fie d that she was mo re upset that her husband

ta lke d abo ut her in a neg at ive way to anot her pe rso n than she was abo ut

him having an affa ir. VII RR 51. The che ck fro m the insurance co mpany

had be en agr ee d by the m to be div ide d, the n Mrs. Pe rkins re fuse d. VII RR

52. She admi tt ed that he was le gal ly ent it le d to 50% of the pro ce ed s, but

she de po sit ed the w ho l e amo unt into her acco unt wit hout his signa ture

.
VII RR 52, 5 3, 5 6. She w as able t o spe ak d uring this t ime

. VI I RR 62

.
Mrs. Pe rkins spo ke wit h tw o diff er ent Sm it h C o u nty pro sec uto rs

abo ut the case . VII RR 71, 72. She at te mpt ed to file an affidav it of nonpro sec utio n wit h the arre sti ng a g e nc y

. VII I RR 64. She lat er to ld the

pro sec uto rs that s he d id not ev er at te mpt to file an affi davi t of nonpro sec utio n. V II I RR 124, 130. She al so m aint aine d this ve rsio n during

tr ial, t hat she had ne ve r tr ie d t o dro p t he charg es. VII I RR 10 6-10 8.

Her tr ea ti ng physic ian te sti fie d that her injuri es co uld be co nsist ent

wit h cho king, the y co uld also be co nsist ent wit h ot her thing s. VII RR 114.

Her CT scan ind i c a te d no injuri es. VII RR 115, 122. The re was no

me dica l pro of of her injuri es, ot h e r t h an her co mpl aint

. VII RR 116.

The re was n o bruising on her nec k or her jaw

. VII RR 120. The CT scan

8also did not show any bruisi ng under the skin. VII RR 126. The re was no

dama ge t o her t hro at t hat was ob ser ve d. VI I RR 13 1.

The onl y ev ide nce that any cho king in this case co uld imp ed e nor mal

cir culat io n cam e fro m Dr. We be r who sta te d “Ye ah, I wo uld suspec t so, if

it was do ne fo rce fully eno ugh.” VII RR 132. This sta te me nt do es not rise

to the le ve l o f p r o o f re quire d fo r that el em ent , that the blo od flo w was

act ually imp ed ed

. So the case c o m e s d o w n to whe the r Mrs. Pe rkins

nor mal bre at hing was imp ed ed

. By her ow n te sti mo ny, she was sti ll able

to spe ak, and t her e was no me dica l pro of o f i njurie s.

Final ly, an unrel at ed wit ness te sti fie d that the day of t he assault
,
Mr. P er kins w as dro ppe d o ff and he t oo k Mrs

. Per kins to the gas sta ti on

le avi ng Mr. P er kins i n t he house

. VI II RR 89-9 0.

The jury
, as the tr ie r of fact
, "i s the sol e judg e of the cre dibi lit y of the

wit nesse s and of the str eng th of the ev ide nce ." Fue nte s v. St at e , 991

S. W. 2d 267, 271 ( T e x

. C rim

. App. 1999 ). The jury may cho ose to be lie ve

or disbe li e v e a n y po rt io n of the te sti mo ny. Shar p v. St at e , 707 S. W. 2d

611, 614 (Te x. C r i m. App. 1986 ). The jury may also draw re aso nable

infe re nce s fro m basic fact s to ulti mat e fact s. Cle wis v. St at e , 922 S. W. 2d

126, 133 (Te x. Crim

. App. 1996 ). Whe n face d wit h co nflic ti ng ev ide nce , the

9appe llat e co urt pre sume s the tr ie r of fact re sol ve d c o nf l i ct s in the

pre vai ling part y's fav or

. Turro v. St at e , 86 7 S

. W

. 2 d 4 3 , 47 (Te x. Crim

. App. 1993 ).

How ev er , the duty of a re vie wing co ur t r e q ui r es ensuri ng that the

ev ide nce pre sent e d act ually suppo rt s a co nclusio n that the de fe ndant

c o mm it te d the cri me charg ed

. Wi lli ams v. St at e , 235 S. W. 3d 742, 7 5 0
(Te x. Crim

. App. 2007 ). An appe llat e co urt can not uphold a fact -finde r's

de cisi on if it is irr at io nal or unsupport e d by mo re than a me re mo dicum

of the ev ide nce

. Mor eno v. St at e , 755 S

. W .2 d 866, 867 (Te x. Crim

. App.

1988 ).

In this case , t he St at e’ s case is made or not by the te sti mo ny of t he

co mpl aining wit ness, and we have an est range d spo use who had a mo ti ve

to misl ea d, spe cifi call y the che ck she de po sit ed in her acco unt wit hout her

husband’s signa ture

. She at te mpt ed to file an affi da v i t o f nonpro sec utio n, sta te d t o pro sec uto rs that she had not do ne so.

D

. C o nc l us i o n

This Court should susta in the firs t and sec ond issue s and re ve rse the

judg me nt of the tr ial co urt and re nder an acqui tt al to the charg e of assault

10base d o n le gal ly insuffic ie nt ev ide nce

.

I s s ue T hr e e , R e s t a t e d : I t w a s e r r o r f o r t he t r i a l c o ur t t o d e ny A p p e l l a nt ’ s

r e q ue s t t o i nc l ud e a l e s s e r i nc l ud e d i ns t r uc t i o n i n t he j ur y c ha r g e

.

A

. L a w o n L e s s e r - i nc l ud e d O f f e ns e s

In a pro sec utio n fo r an of fe nse wit h le sse r include d of fe nses, the jury

may find the de fe ndant not guil ty of the gre at er of fe nse, but guil ty of any

l e sse r include d of

fe nse. T E X

. C O D E C R IM

. P R O C

. A N N

. art

. 37. 08 ( W e s t

2013

. An of

fe nse is a le sse r-inc lude d if: (1) it is est abli shed by pro of of the

same or le ss than all the fact s re quire d to est abli sh the co mm issio n of the

of fe nse charg ed ; (2) it diff er s fro m the of

fe nse charg ed onl y in the re spe ct

that a le ss ser io us injury or risk of injury to the same pe rso n, pro pe rt y, or
public inte re st suffice s to est abli sh its co mm issio n; (3) it diff er s fro m the

of fe nse charg ed on l y in the re spe ct that a le ss culpab le me ntal sta te

suffic es to es t abli sh it s co mm issio n; or (4) it co nsist s of an at te mpt to

co mm it the of

fe ns e charg ed to an ot her wise include d of fe nse. Id. Art

.

37. 09.

A tw o part te st is used to de te rmi ne whe the r a pe rso n is ent it le d to

a le sse r-inc lude d o f

f e ns e inst ruct io n. The firs t ste p is a ques ti on of law

11and do es not de pe nd on the ev ide nce

. It may be , and to pro vid e noti ce to

t he d e f enda nt must be
, capa ble of be ing pe rfo rme d be fo re tr ial b y

co mpar ing the el em ent s of the of fe nse as the y a r e alle ge d in the

info rma ti on wit h the el em ent s of the po te ntia l le sse r incl ud e d of fe nse.

The sec ond ste p should ask whe the r the re is ev ide nce that suppo rt s giv ing

the inst ruct io n to the jury

. The de fe ndant is ent it le d to an inst ruct io n on

a le sse r include d of

fe nse whe re the pro of fo r the of fe nse charg ed include s

the pro of nec ess ary to es t a b l i s h the le sse r include d of fe nse and the re is

som e ev ide nce in the re co rd that wo uld p e r m i t a jury to rat io nally find

t ha t i f the de fe ndant is guil ty , he is guil ty onl y of the le sse r include d

of fe nse. Anythi ng mo re than a scint ill a of ev ide nce is suffic ie nt to ent it le

the de fe ndant to the le sse r include d charg e. Cavazo s v. St at e , 382 S. W. 3d

377, 382 (Te x. Cr i m

. App. 2012 ); Hall v. St at e , 225 S. W. 3d 524, 535- 36
(Te x. Cri m. App. 2 007)

.
Alt hough the thre shol d show ing is lo w, it is not eno ugh that the jury

may disbe lie ve cr uc i a l e v ide nce pe rt aining to the gre at er of fe nse, but

rat her
, the re must be som e ev ide nce dire ct ly ge rma ne to the le s s er include d of

fe nse fo r the finde r of fact to co nside r be fo re and inst ruct io n is

war rant ed

. Sw ee d v. St at e , 351 S. W. 3d 63, 67-6 8 (Te x. Crim

. App. 2011 ).

12T h e sta ndard may be sat isfi ed if som e ev ide nce re fute s or neg at es ot he r

ev ide nce est abli shing th e g r e a t er of fe nse or if the ev ide nce pre sent ed is

subje ct t o diff

er ent i nte rpre ta ti ons. Sw ee d
, 351 S. W. 3d at 6 8.

B

. A na l y s i s
Appe llant soug ht a le sse r include d in s t r ucti on fo r a clas s A

misd em ea nor of

fe nse of assault causing bodi ly inj ury. T E X

. P E N A L C O D E

A N N

. §2 2. 01(a )(1) ( W e s t 2013 ). The diff er enc e be tw ee n the tw o charg es

r e g a r ds whe the r an assault causing bo dily injury oc curre d, or whe th e r

Mrs. Pe rkins’ nor mal bre at hing or cir culat io n had be en im p e de d. The

tr ial court did not conduct any analysi s as to the lesse r include d off ense

.
VII I RR 13 7-13 9.

D r

. W eb er te sti fie d that while her co mpl aint s co uld have be en

cause d by cho king, t he y also co uld have be en cause d in ot her way s. VII

RR 114. The injury which was n ot co nte ste d at tr ial was a bruise or

hem at om a to her fo re head

. Mrs. Pe rkins te sti fie d that this injury cause d

pain. VII RR 34. A lesse r include d charge should have b ee n incl uded in

the j ury charg e in t his c ase

.

13C

. R e m e d y a nd R e l i e f R e q ue s t e d

The tr ial co urt co rre ct ly fo und that the spe c i f i c s ub sec ti on of

diso rde rly co nduct was a le sse r include d of fe nse to inde ce nt ex po sure

. The

er ro r oc curre d whe n the tr ial c o u rt inco rre ct ly fo und that the re was not

a scint ill a of ev ide nce re quiri ng the le sse r inst ruct io n. The er ro r re quire s

re ve rsal a nd a new t rial

.

14P R A Y E R F O R R E L I E F

WHEREFO RE, PREMIS ES CONS ID ERED
, Appe llant re spe ct fully

pray s that the tr ial co urt’ s de cisi on be re ve rse d and judg me nt of acqui tt al

re nder ed
, or that the case be re ve rse d and re mande d fo r a new tr ial, and

fo r ot her such re lie f a s a llo we d b y law

.

Respe ct fully subm it te d,

/ s/ Jam es Huggl er Jam es W. Hugg le r, J r. St at e Bar Numbe r 0079 5437 100 E. Fe rguso n, Suit e 805 Tyl er , Te xas 7570 2 903- 593- 2400 903- 593- 3830 fa x

ATTO RNEY FO R APPELL ANT

15C E R T I F I C A T E O F S E R V I C E

A tr ue and co rre ct co py of the fo re go ing Brie f o f t he Appe llant has be en

fo rwa rde d to co unsel fo r the St at e by el ec tr oni c fili ng on this the 22 n d day

of J uly, 2 015.

/ s/ Jam es Huggl er Jam es W. Hugg le r, J r.

Att or ney fo r the S ta te : Michae l We st Sm it h Co unty Crim inal Dist ric t Att or ney ’s Offi ce 100 N. Bro adwa y, 4 t h F lo or Tyl er , Te xas 7570 2

C E R T I F I C A T E O F C O M P L I A N C E I ce rt ify t hat this Bri ef c om plie s w it h Te x. R. App. P

. 9. 4, spe cifi call y using 14 po int Cent ury fo nt and c ont ains 3, 281 wo rds as co unte d b y Cor el W or dPe rfe ct v er sio n x 5.

/ s/ Jam es Huggl er Jam es Huggl er

16