## 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

N O S

. P D

- 1 2 8 3

- 1 2

, P D

- 1 5 8 2

- 1 2

, P D

- 1 5 8 3

- 1 2

A N D R E S N A V A a n d X I O M A R A M E N D E Z

, A p p e l l a n t s

v

.

T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

O N A P P E L L A N T S ’ P E T I T I O N F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W

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

H A R R I S C O U N T Y

C O C H R A N

, J

. , f

i l e d a c o n c u r r i n g o p i n i o n i n w h i c h A L C A L A

, J

. , j o i n e d

.

I j o i n P a r t I I ( “ J u r y S e l e c t i o n

– M i s s i n g R e c o r d ” ) o f t h e m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n

, a n d I c o n c u r

i n t h e j u d g m e n t

. I a g r e e t h a t a n y e r r o n e o u s “ i n t e n t t o p r o m o t e o r a s s i s t ” p a r t i e s i n s t r u c t i o n

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

. I c a n n o t

, h o w e v e r

, a g r e e w i t h a l l

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

t h e a p p e l l a n t s a c t e d w i t h t h e “ i n t e n t t o p r o m o t e o r a s s i s t t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f t h e o f f e n s e o f

m u r d e r

, ” n o t “

f e l o n y m u r d e r

. ” T h e r e i s n o s u c h t h i n g a s a n i n t e n t t o c o m m i t f e l o n y m u r d e r

. 1

See Majority op. at 1 2 (st ating that the jury instruction “re quired the State to show that 1

appellants intended to promote or assist the commission of felony murder befo r e c o n v ic ting of felonyNava & Me ndez Concurring Opinion Page 2

A s a g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n

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

, t h e o n l y t h e o r y

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

S e c t i o n 7

. 0 2 ( b )

. N o r m a l l y

, t h e “ i n t e n t t o p r o m o t e o r a s s i s t ” t h e o r y o f p a r t y l i a b i l i t y u n d e r

S e c t i o n 7

. 0 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) d o e s n o t a p p l y t o a n u n i n t e n t i o n a l k i l l i n g u n d e r t h e f e l o n y

- m u r d e r r u l e

.

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

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

d o e s t h e k i l l i n g d o e s n o t i n t e n d t o c o m m i t a m u r d e r

. I n s u c h a c a s e

, t h e S t a t e m u s t p r o v e t h a t

t h e a c c o m p l i c e h a s a g r e a t e r m e n s r e a t h a n t h e a c t u a l k i l l e r w h o j u s t i n t e n d e d t o c o m m i t a

f e l o n y

, s u c h a s t h e f

t

, a n d t h e n

, d u r i n g t h a t t h e f t

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

h u m a n l i f

e t h a t d i d c a u s e a d e a t h

.

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

a c c o m p l i c e s

, A n d r e s N a v a

, i n t e n d e d f o r t h e s h o o t e r

, R o b e r t o C a r r i l l o

, t o k i l l t h e u n d e r c o v e r

o f f i c e r w h e n h e s h o u t e d

, “ ¡ T í r a l e ! ” ( “ S h o o t h i m ! ” ) e v e n t h o u g h t h e S t a t e w a s n o t r e q u i r e d

t o p r o v e t h a t C a r r i l l o h i m s e l f i n t e n d e d t o c a u s e t h e u n d e r c o v e r o f f i c e r ’ s d e a t h

. A l t h o u g h

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

, X i o m a r a

M e n d e z

, i n t e n d e d t h a t C a r r i l l o k i l l t h e u n d e r c o v e r o f f i c e r

, I a g r e e t h a t s h e

, l i k e N a v a

, d i d n o t

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

l i a b i l i t y u n d e r S e c t i o n 7

. 0 2 ( a ) ( 2 )

.

T h e p r e s e n t p r o b l e m w a s a n t i c i p a t e d a n d r e s o l v e d b y t h e d r a f t e r s o f t h e 1 9 7 0

murder unde r this theory

of par ty liability .”).Nava & Me ndez Concurring Opinion Page 3

P r o p o s e d R e v i s i o n t o t h e T e x a s P e n a l C o d e

. A s a p a r t o f S e c t i o n 1 9

. 0 2

, o u r m u r d e r s t a t u t e

,

t h e d r a f t e r s p r o p o s e d a s u b s e c t i o n ( 4 ) t h a t e x p l i c i t l y a d d r e s s e d p a r t y l i a b i l i t y i n t h e c o n t e x t

o f f e l o n y m u r d e r

. T h a t p r o v i s i o n r e a d a s f o l l o w s :

( 4 ) h e i s a p a r t y t o a f e l o n y a n d a n o t h e r p a r t y t o t h e f e l o n y c o m m i t s m u r d e r

a s d e f i n e d i n S u b d i v i s i o n ( 3 ) [ f e l o n y m u r d e r ]

, a n d t h e a c t o r :

( A ) s o l i c i t s

, d i r e c t s

, a i d s o r a t t e m p t s t o a i d t h e h o m i c i d a l a c t ; o r

( B ) i s a r m e d w i t h a d e a d l y w e a p o n ; o r

( C ) i s r e c k l e s s w i t h r e g a r d t o w h e t h e r t h e o t h e r p a r t y i s a r m e d w i t h a d e a d l y

w e a p o n ; o r

( D ) i s r e c k l e s s w i t h r e g a r d t o w h e t h e r t h e o t h e r p a r t y i n t e n d s t o c o m m i t a n

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

. 2

T h e C o m m i t t e e C o m m e n t t o t h i s S e c t i o n ( 4 ) n o t e d t h a t t h i s w a s “ a s p e c i a l t h e o r y o f

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

m u r d e r

, b e c a u s e “ [ t ] h e g e n e r a l c o m p l i c i t y t e s t

, S e c t i o n 7

. 0 2

, w o u l d n o t i m p o s e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

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

. ” 3

T h e C o m m i t t e e t h o u g h t t h a t t h e f o u r d i f f e r e n t a c t i o n s ( a i d i n g i n t h e h o m i c i d a l a c t

, b e i n g

S T A T E B A R C O M M I T T E E O N R E V I S I O N O F T H E P E N A L C O D E

, P R O P O S E D P E N A L C O D E § 2

19.02(4), a t 146 (1970).

Id. Commi ttee Comment to Section 19.02, at 148. P ro p o s ed S ection 7.02 (“Criminal 3

Responsibili ty for Conduct of Another” ) contained substantially the same subsection (a) as it doe s

today

, but subsection (b) rea d, “A coconspirator is not a party t o an offe nse committed by the

conduct of another unless he is criminally respo n s i b l e for the offense under S ubsection (a).” The

Commi ttee stated that it included Subse c ti o n (b) “to distinguish clea rly betwee n complicity as a basis

of criminal responsibility and the inchoate offe nse of criminal conspirac y .” Committ ee Comment

to Section 7.02, at 51. The Commi ttee acknow ledg ed that then-pre sent Texas law was that a coconspirator was liable for any rea sonably fore seea ble offe nse comm it

te d by his coconspirators which

“follows incidentally in the execution of the common desig n[.] ” Id. The Commi ttee disapproved of

such far -re aching liability and intended to eliminate it in the Proposed Penal Code. But it did note

that “[a] cofe lon’s crimi n al responsibi lity for felony murder is specia lly dealt with in the murder

section, 19.02, and e x plained in the comment to that sec tion.” Id. at 52.Nava & Me ndez Concurring Opinion Page 4

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

, b e i n g a r m e d w i t h a w e a p o n

, o r b e i n g

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

e l o n ’ s v i c a r i o u s l i a b i l i t y

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

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

. ” 4

H o w e v e r

, w h e n t h e r e v i s e d P e n a l C o d e w a s a c t u a l l y e n a c t e d i n 1 9 7 4

, t h e s p e c i a l

c o f e l o n c r i m i n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y p r o v i s i o n s f o r f e l o n y m u r d e r i n 1 9

. 0 2 ( 4 ) w e r e s i m p l i f i e d a n d

t u r n e d i n t o a g e n e r a l c o n s p i r a t o r i a l l i a b i l i t y t h e o r y i n S e c t i o n 7

. 0 2 ( b )

. T h e P r a c t i c e

C o m m e n t a r y t o t h e 1 9 7 4 C o d e e x p l a i n e d t h a t i t s d r a f t e r s h a d r e s t o r e d t h e

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

o f a c o n s p i r a c y t o c o m m i t a n y f e l o n y

. S e c t i o n 7

. 0 2 ( b ) [ a n e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t

p r o v i s i o n t h a n t h a t p r o p o s e d i n t h e 1 9 7 0 C o d e ] m a k e s c o f e l o n s v i c a r i o u s l y

r e s p o n s i b l e f

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

, s o l o n g a s t h e

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

j e c t f e l o n y

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

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

. 5

T h e 1 9 7 4 C o d e p a i n t e d t h e c o n s p i r a c y c o n c e p t w i t h a b r o a d b r u s h a n d t o o k t h e t y p e o f

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

- m u r d e r c o f

e l o n s a n d a p p l i e d i t t o t h e

u n i n t e n d e d c o m m i s s i o n o f a n y f e l o n y

. T h e P r a c t i c e C o m m e n t a r y t o S e c t i o n 7

. 0 2 t o o k a d i m

6

Id. Commi ttee Comment to Section 19.02, at 149. The Commi ttee stated that the then- 4

curr ent Texas la

w upheld murde r convic tions in these circ umstances “on a theory of complicity to

the eff ect that all parties to a felony are responsible for conduct that was or oug h t t o h ave been

fore seen by the parties as a probable conseque nce of the intended felony .” Id. (empha sis in orig inal).

But, the Commi ttee noted that this former law, a simple neg lige nce standard for vicar ious liability

,

was reje cted both in the complicity statute of Section 7.02 and in the felony -murder context as well.

Id.

T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 19.02, Practice Commentary at 10 (Ve rnon’s 1974). 5

Id. 6Nava & Me ndez Concurring Opinion Page 5

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

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

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

a p r e r e q u i s i t e t o i m p o s i t i o n o f c r i m i n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

. ” B u t t h a t i s t h e l a w t h a t t h e 7

L e g i s l a t u r e a d o p t e d a n d i t h a s n o t b e e n a m e n d e d s i n c e

.

T h u s

, b y c h a r g i n g t h e j u r y w i t h b o t h t h e o r i e s o f c r i m i n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r C a r r i l l o ’ s

a c t o f s h o o t i n g a n d k i l l i n g O f f i c e r C a n a l e s

, t h e S t a t e t o o k o n t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g e i t h e r

( 1 ) a p p e l l a n t s

, N a v a a n d M e n d e z

, i n t e n d e d “ t o p r o m o t e o r a s s i s t t h e c o m m i s s i o n

o f t h e o f f e n s e o f m u r d e r ”

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

, e n c o u r a g e d

, d i r e c t e d

, a i d e d

,

o r a t t e m p t e d t o a i d “ R o b e r t o C a r r i l l o t o c o m m i t t h e o f f e n s e o f m u r d e r ” ; o r

( 2 ) a p p e l l a n t s

, N a v a a n d M e n d e z

, a l o n g w i t h R o b e r t o C a r r i l l o

, “ e n t e r e d i n t o a n

a g r e e m e n t t o c o m m i t f

e l o n y t h e f

t

, ”

. . . a n d “ w h i l e i n t h e c o u r s e o f c o m m i t t i n g

s u c h t h e f t

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

t h a t c a u s e d t h e d e a t h o f ” O f f i c e r C a n a l e s

, a n d t h a t t h e [ a c t ] c a u s i n g O f f i c e r 8

C a n a l e s ’ s d e a t h w a s c o m m i t t e d i n f u r t h e r a n c e o f t h e c o n s p i r a c y a n d w a s a n

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

. ”

U n d e r t h e f

i r s t p r o n g

, t h e S t a t e w a s r e q u i r e d t o p r o v e t h a t a p p e l l a n t s h a d t h e i n t e n t t o h a v e

C a r r i l l o c o m m i t t h e o f

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

m u r d e r

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

, o n l y f e l o n y

- m u r d e r

.

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

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

Id. § 7.02, Practice Commentary at 135-36. 7

The jury char g e actua lly rea ds “and that the murder of H. Canales was committed in 8

further ance of the conspirac y and was an offense that the defe ndant should have anticipated as a

result of the conspirac y [,] ” when it should have rea d “and that the act [or the clea rly dang erous act]

that cause d the death of H. Canales was committed in further ance of the conspirac y and was an act

that the def

endant should have anticipated a s a re sult of the conspirac y .”Nava & Me ndez Concurring Opinion Page 6

a p p e l l a n t i n t e n d e d t o a s s i s t t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f “ t h e o f f e n s e

, i f a n y ” a n d t h a t t h e y s o l i c i t e d

,

e n c o u r a g e d

, d i r e c t e d

, a i d e d o r a t t e m p t e d t o a i d R o b e r t o C a r r i l l o t o c o m m i t “ t h e o f f e n s e ”

w i t h o u t s p e c i f

y i n g w h a t o f

f e n s e t h e i n s t r u c t i o n w a s r e f e r r i n g t o

. B u t

, p r e c i s e l y f o r t h e

r e a s o n s g i v e n b y t h e m a j o r i t y

, I a g r e e t h a t t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n

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

, d i d

n o t c a u s e a p p e l l a n t s e g r e g i o u s h a r m u n d e r A l m a n z a

. 9

F i l e d : D e c e m b e r 1 8

, 2 0 1 3

P u b l i s h

Almanza v. State , 686 S.W .2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (op. on re h’g ).

9