## 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 FROM THE TW ELF TH CO URT O F AP PEALS

AND ERS ON CO UNTY M E YE RS , J. , f

i l e d a di s s e nt i ng o pi ni on i n w hi c h K EASLE Rand H ERVEY , JJ . , j oi ne d. DI S S EN TI NG OP I NI ON A ppel l antw as char ged w i t h m ans l aught er . T he St at e as ked forand r ece i ved, over A p p e llan t’s o b

jec tio n , a ju ryin stru c tio n o n th e les se r-in c lu d e d o f f e n se o f c rim in a lly neg l i gen tho m i ci de. T he juryw as properl yi nst ruct ed o n m ansl aug hterw i t h a reckles s c u lp a b le m e n tal s tate , an d o n c rim in a llyn e g lig e n t h o m icid e w ith a c u lp a b le m e n tal s tate of negl i gence . T he j ur yacqui t t ed A ppel l antof the mansl aught erchar ge butconvi ct ed hi m of cr i m i nal l ynegl i genthom i ci de. H e appe al ed, cl ai m i ng t hatbeca us e ther e w as noWasylina dissent–Page2

Alternatively , the State would be ha ppy if we said that the prosecutor has the discretion 1 to ra iseany

le sser- inc lude d o ff

e ns ethat is a llo we d b y

theindic tment. e v id e n c e o f

c rim in a l n e g lig e n c e p re se n ted a t trial, the trial c o u rt im p ro p e rlysu b m itt e d to t he j ur yt he l es s er - i ncl uded off ens e of c r i m i nal l ynegl i genthom i ci de. T he courtof a p p e a ls a g re e d , a n d s o d o I. Si nce the St at e di dn’ tl i ke the r es ul t s of A ppel l ant ’ s appea l , i tappea l ed t o us and r ai s ed the fol l ow i ng i s s ues : t he courtof appe al s ’ fai l ur e t o cons i derPenal C ode s ect i on 6 .0 2 (e ), th e u se o f

a n im p ro p e r sta n d a rd o f re v iew , an d p ro se c u to ria l d isc re tio n to su b m it l es s er - i ncl uded off

ens e i ns t ruct i ons . W hatt he St at e does n’ tw antus t o do i s a s uffi ci ency anal y s i s on t he fa ct s of thi s cas e–i tw ant s us t o j us ts ayt hatcr i m i nal l ynegl i genthom i ci de i s al w ay s a l es s er - i ncl uded off ens e of mansl aught erand ther efor e, s i nce thi s j ur yw as pr oper l ychar ged on the cul pabl e ment al s t at es fort hes e off ens es and i tfound A ppel l ant gui l t yof cr i m i nal l ynegl i genthom i ci de, t her e musthave be en pr oof of c r i m i nal n e g lig e n c e , ev e n th o u g h e v id e n c e o f o n lyre c k les sn e ss w a s p re se n ted . T h e m a jo rity 1 acqui es ces t o t he St at e and de cl i nes t o anal y ze the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence of cr i m i nal neg l i gen ce, i nst ead h oldi ng t hat “pr ov i ng t he g reat er cul pab l e m ental st at e of reckles sness nece s s ar i l ypr oves t he l es s ercul pabl e ment al s t at e of c r i m i nal negl i gence . . . . ” I n doi ng so , the m a

jo rityc o m p lete lyig n o re s th e f a c t th a t th e S tate d id n o t pr ove t he gr eat er cul pabl e ment al s t at e of r eckl es s nes s , w hi ch i s w hyt he j ur yacqui t t ed A ppel l antof m a n s la u g h te r. T he maj or i t y ’ s hol di ng i s bas ed on Texas Penal C ode s ect i on 6. 02( e) , w hi ch s t at esWasylina dissent–Page3

t hat“Pr oof of a hi gherdegr ee of cul pabi l i t yt han thatchar ged cons t i tut es pr oof of the c u l p a b i l i t yc h a r g e d . ” I wo u l d l i k e t o e mp h a s i z e t h e f i r s two r d

– P r o o f. I n c r i mi n a l l a w, t hatm eans bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . I w oul d al s o l i ke t o poi ntoutt hati ts ay s “Pr oof of a h i g h e rd e g r e e o f

c u l p a b i l i t y than thatchar ged . . . . ” So, i f A ppel l anthad bee n or i gi nal l yi ndi ct ed forcr i m i nal l ynegl i genthom i ci de, butatt r i al t he St at e pr oved r eckl es s nes s bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , t hen s ect i on 6. 02( e) m ayappl y . I ns t ead, her e, A ppel l antw as i ndi ct ed form ans l aught er . A nd, w hi l e ther e w as evi dence r egar di ng t he r eckl es s m ent al s t at e thatgoes al ong w i t h t he mansl aught erchar ge l i s t ed i n t he i ndi ctm ent , t her e w as notpr oof bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtof r eckl es s nes s , as i ndi cat ed byt he j ur y ’ s deci s i on t o acqui tA ppel l antof thatchar ge. T hus , w e have no pr oof of e ven t he cul pabl e ment al s t at e fort he cha r ged off ens e, l etal one pr oof of a hi gherdegr ee of cul pabi l i t y . Penal C ode s ect i on 6. 02( e) s i m pl ydoes notappl yi n t hi s cas e. I th ink w e sh o u ld g o b ac k to the rea l i ssu e, st arti n g w ith w h ethe r th e lesse ri ncl uded- offe ns e i ns t ruct i on s houl d have be en gi ven. I n M a lik v . S ta te , 953 S. W . 2d 234 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1997) , w e dec i ded that“the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence s houl d be m ea su red b ythe e lem en ts of the o ff en se a s d ef

ined b ythe h yp o theticall yco rrect j u ry c h a rg e f o r th e c a se . S u c h a c h a rg e w o u ld b e o n e th a t ac c u ra telyse ts o u t th e law , is author i zed byt he i ndi ctm ent , does notunnece s s ar i l yi ncr eas e the St at e’ s bur den of pr oof orunnece s s ar i l yr es t r i ctt he St at e’ s t heor i es of l i abi l i t y , and ade quat el ydes cr i bes t he p a rticu lar o f

f e n se f o r w h ich th e d e f

e n d a n t w a s trie d .” O r, as w e m o re re c e n tlysta ted inWasylina dissent–Page4

G ris sa m v . S ta te , 267 S. W . 3d 39 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 2008) , “The l egal s uffi ci encyof evi dence i s m eas ur ed aga i ns tt he r equi r ement s forconvi ct i on i n a corr ectchar ge of the cour t( as di s t i ngui s hed fr om t he cha r ge thatactual l yw as gi ven) . ” W hati s t he hypot het i cal l ycorr ectj ur ychar ge i n t hi s cas e? I s i tt he cha r ge that actual l yw as gi ven w i t h a l es s er - i ncl uded off ens e i ns t ruct i on, ors houl d t he j ur yhave be en i ns t ruct ed on mansl aught eronl y ? T hi s cons i der at i on nece s s ar i l yr equi r es an ana l y s i s of t he s uffi ci encyof the evi dence pr es ent ed att he tr i al . I n m yopi ni on, i n thi s cas e, t he A p p ell an t w ins e ith er w ay . T o m e, ba sed o n the e v iden ce p rese n ted a t tri al, the lesse ri ncl uded- offe ns e i ns t ruct i on s houl d nothave be en gi ven ( w hi ch i s w hatt he courtof a p p e a ls d e ter m in e d ). C rim in a l n e g lig e n c e re q u ire s p ro o f th a t a r e a so n a b le p e rso n w o u ld h a v e re c o g n ize d th e su b sta n tial risk th a t th e b e h a v io r p o se d . T h e S tate w o u ld h a v e h a d to s how notonl yt hatt he def endantw as notaw ar e of the r i s k, butal s o t hathe s hould have b e e n a w a re o f

th e ri s k o f

h is b e h a v io r, n e ith e r o f w h ic h w a s p re s e n te d in th is c a s e . T h e r e f o r e , t h e h yp o t h e t i c a l l y c o r r e c tj u r y c h a r g e s h o u l d h a v e i n c l u d e d m a n s l a u g h t e ro n l y, an d the ju ryfo u n d A p p ell an t no t gu il tyo f th at of fe n se. H o w ev er, ev en if th e lesse ri ncl uded- offe ns e i ns t ruct i on w as pr oper l ygi ven, t he evi dence pr es ent ed att r i al of c r i mi n a l l yn e g l i g e n th o mi c i d e i s n o tl e g a l l ys u f f i c i e n tt o s u p p o r ta g u i l t yv e r d i c t . ( Of cour s e, t hi s l ack of

s uffi ci entevi dence i s t he r eas on t hatt he i ns t ruct i on s houl d nothave b e e n g iv e n in th e f

ir s t p la c e ). I n herdi s s ent i ng opi ni on i n C o lli e r v . S ta te , Pr es i di ng J udge K el l erpoi nt ed outWasylina dissent–Page5

th a t “ Ma lik

r ecogni zed thatan off

ens e s houl d neverbe s ubm i t t ed t o t he fa ct fi nderw hen t her e i s l egal l yi ns uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor ti t . Fr om t hes e obs ervat i ons i tfol l ow s t hat th e h yp o th e tica llyc o rre c t ju ryc h a rg e w o u ld n o t in c lu d e a n e lem e n t o f a n o f f e n se th a t is s uppor t ed byl egal l yi ns uffi ci entevi dence . ” C ol l i er , 9 9 9 S . W . 2 d 7 7 9 , 7 8 7 ( Te x . Cr i m. A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) ( K e lle r, J ., d is s e n tin g ), c iti n gMa lik , 953 S. W . 2d at237. I agr ee. I al s o agr ee w ith th e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls th a t th e re is n o 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 r at i onal j ur yt o fi nd t hatA ppel l anti s gui l t yof cr i m i nal l ynegl i genthom i ci de. T her efor e, th e o f f e n s e s h o u ld n e v e r h a v e b e e n s u b m itte d to th e f a c tf in d e r. B eca us e the maj or i t yfai l s t o anal y ze the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence and i ns t ead im p ro p e rlya p p lies P e n a l C o d e se c tio n 6 .0 2 (e ), I re sp e c tf u llyd iss e n t.

M ey ers , J.

Fi l ed: J anuary28, 2009 P ub l i sh