OFFICE OF THE A’HORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

fionorabls Xrnert Euirm 

Gounty Attorney 

Bl Paso, Taraa 

bar Sir: 

mmmllt with 

vehiaLe aa to A, 

brequ*at tP1al ror 

nt hid0140 oi BR 

l o o u*fullr oy l80 

a o f fo r mejropardn r 

en the brmizuberm aaptior+ 

putHi6 imm yGlr l6ttmr In 

l do se no t 8ppo a r to h a m 

8k your opinion thrnon for 

TM and the oottrt. 

6, are standing 61~80 to oaah other DLL 

it&wa~a.nUtolkine tosath@TandD ia 

runs intra thorn,, ii ha bo l oqultted on 

grarateU a8nul.t with a antor *ohiol* 

am ~to A, in a wbaoquent trial for ne lgrnt heulaide 

of B, 384~ he suosssatully raia6 tbm p f! ea of formsr 

j6oparUy?” 

Artisl6 1, Ysatton 14 of the Taxa 0oetltution p-da68 

that8 
Eon. Exnest Oulnn, page 2 

"i.0 person, for the acme oitenoe, shall be 

twice put in jeoperdy of life or liberty, nor shall 

a perccn bc nealn put upon trial for the 8emb oifenae, 

after a verdict of not @lty In a court of aompetent 

jurisdiction." 

The aamc provision.la also contained In the Ck~?e of CrMnal 

Proceaure. Article 8, ~ernon's &motataa C0ae or criminal Procs- 

&ire. 

There are ILO etatutes dofining the terms use4 or dealacing 

the extent oi the appliaatlon of the ri&t - oaly l naitmente 

pr0daing *en all6 hew jeopardy aray be phfkba. mn. 608, 609 

and I510 0i ~ernonLf3 Annotated Code of Crltinal Prooedurc rerb 

as followr: 

Al-t* 508. "The only epeolal plsao whioh oen bo 

heard iOr the aerontmt atat 

%. That he ham been oonvicted legally, in a 

oourt of oompetent jnriu4Iiatlon, upon the 8nm 

aoousatlon, after having beon tried upon the writ8 

for ths came offense. 

"2. ‘but he has beor l~fore hoquitted by a jury 

of the l o o wa tio apinst a him, in a ootart of oorgetent 

jurlediotion, *ether the aaquittdslwas regular or 

irxogular .* 

Art. 609. *Every special plea shall be vertfled 

by the affidavit of the defendant." 

Art. 810. "All iaaues of fact pn8enfed by a 

rpeolal plea ehall be tried by a jury.* 

The aourts am very liberal in eon&ruing the constitutional 

provisions, arteabi~ the rule to cases within lta N)aBon though 

not Wlthln It6 WOTilCIIII* %bi.ls etatntss are to be 8trfatl.y interpret& aa against persons oharged with orlme, preVSionm introau00a in their favor hhouia be oonstrued llbimllyt and the same 

distinction applleo to a written oon8tltutlon.. Griahum v. State, 

19 'Sex, Cr. Apps. 604. 

Ur&er the aristlLl(t applioation of the principle Of jWpa$dp, a dfatinctim 18 dxawa between jeopardy~an,nB former 
. . 

/ 

-- 3% 

eon. srnebt Guinn, page 8 

oonviotlon Bna aaqulttal. The former is predloated upon a 

proaeoutioo %ischarGed for valid eeueee without a verdlot the 

latter pro-rupposes end is based upon v~ralotormnderdl. Q rlsham 

v. State, auprs. 

Inasmuch ae you predloate your question upon an aoquittal 

on a ahargo of egcgarated assault with a motor vohiole, we 

pruumo that you daolro to know whether a plea or fomer aoquittal dll 110 under the raote etatea. 

In Texae ther, lo a well reoogulzed dlatincflon batwoon tb 

ploaa of former ooaviotlon aptI faram aaquittal. The plea of 

forirw oonviotion only roqulroe that the tranrotlon, or the 

faatm oonetituting it, bo the mm. Rzmor acquittal, on the 

other hand, r4quirW not only that the trumaofion bo the mm8 

but also thut the two ln&iotnuntm be rumeptible of a8 nurtelnable by th 8 e mo It bar boon l a fbthat . t!d dlrtlaotloa 

is the r&%&&Otrfne o? ouviug. UI ref. Jw. p. 667 

Sec. BS9; Wlght V. State, 19 Per. Cr. Appe. lbtt Yiooo v. %a&, 

9 TM. Or. Apia. 386. 

Before an aoeueed oan lntmposa the bofenso of formor aoquit@&, the formr trial iaunt have bem upon the eamm &dontioal 

orialibnl mot for whfoh the State fs a&ala aeoklaa to proaeontr, 

hlr. tie oritr mu8t.b the meme in both oam8 though the 

$kadtnga &iSfer ins imatorial oireumtu&ou. 'fho came offacre 

muu the.laontisal arimbml l o t or oriealon; not the eu 

o tr ~nw l o nemlne, or one ei the nme nature. 18 'pex. Jur.p. 

6S4, Sea. 887. ~lllisuw f. at&e, 188 8. W‘ 4% 

Uhoro, aa uabr tho iWOe here mabsdtML, more then one 

perua im killed or lnjored "at the euae tima,’ a dlftlouit 

qumtion often a8 to whdil%~~ the person re8pon@lblo for 

ouoh lnjurirr or 8eath8 ooma%ttmI oarr ottemo or 8steral 

oiieneaa within o.rule rolatlng to (Loable jeepaMy. 

When two OS more wrongful aOt8 ECO eoglaitted by thm defendant, ao several ahots OF bLowe,~even though oloeoly oonneototl in point of tilPs, ii they are dfreatod at tifiorent 

pur:sons cvab result la the iajw or death of suoh par~one, there 

10 apparent1 no Quwtloa but that,the oifenoee are dletinot 

and an aoqul t tal cst the murdeP of @.r l uaul8 upon oao perma 

is not a bar to a proreautbon:for the mudor of ar auault upon 

aukother. The oaee8 gene~al~,~~lauL1Mlng thoeo in 'kxaa, are 
Hon. krne8t Ouinn, page 4 

in aooord on this golnt. 8 Rulirig Case iaw p. 161, sec. 139; 

~upistine. v. i,tate, ('for. Ci.. Appo.) 82 s. Vi. 77~ Skslton v. 

date, (Tex. Cr. Lap.) 10 L. g*. (2%) 664. 

In the letter case tte ecoueed, with a siqle barreled 

ohotgun, fired at two mn pnseing Us house and they both feli, 

one mortally wounded, acd) on the other running away, the socueed raloabed his gun and shot him again. 'Iho court say8 

that thora warn two scrparote and &ittnot a88aults on the seoond mani anb that in::no event would the aoquittal on tho last 

assault upon the seaodd men bar a proesootiqm for the murder 

of the other man. 880 also the 0888 or Kelly v. State (Tes. 

Cr. Rap.) 68 s. h'. $16, where the erldsnoe ohowed that appellant, grabhad hid pistol and fired twiae jpst a8 rapl4lJ a8 

he oould,";and kflld tro brother8 in the 6a+~e dffiiaultr, 

Ba leadeb former aa uittal of kl~liug ona &n the ,trlal for 

lcil P ing the other. 8 he court held thrtthr plea aoul& pot b8 

8u8taineU by tk:o evidence, broawe it showed it ~88 qot on8 

8at OS miltion on the part oi the eppellant, but two 8hot8, 

two 8eparate and dirtinot iatsntioar, two aot.8, two rolition8, 

oo~tmQoraneou8. 

Owens the result8 to differant fuUvlQual8 mm brou@t 

about by a ein~le wrongful aat, a8 a eingle @hot or blow, however, the ease8 are in oonfliat ,a8 80 whether 8rpTato offenees 

or only CUM offense was oomitb8d. 6on1a oaae8 hare bold that 

there am not reparate offenaeo where tharo is but 8 ain@ sot, 

men though two or more pmnoz~ are l 888ulted or killed thereby. 

&ma of tha8e aa8e8 80 holding do 80 upon the ground that under 

8ueb olraum8taaaea thora ir a eirylo wrongful or etlmlM1 intent 

and therefore there oannot be soreral proe8outlon8 without Ini 

?rlngeamnt ti the rule amln8t double jeopardy. Othrr aourt8, 

houera, have pointed out t&t the oharge8 8n& srldsnce upon 

the two pro8eoationr invo lvinl cg lseuupon lt or mW%er of two 

different person8 under mmh aireumatanaei are not ldsntloal 80 

a8 to areatsiclenti%y of ofiene88 within the rule relating to 

doubti j@mpardy. 

From Bishop’s ibork on Criainal Law,~ (9th Mftion, 1963) 

Ye&ion 1061, we puote as followsr 

*i%hsrt, the same blow wourd8 or kills two'mea, 

iti is oompetent for the pleader to abnrge it'a8 

inflicted on the two; fa: other wordy. the proseaut- 
1~ power may, if it p14b848, treat it as one 

orfence. but the ladiotment will be bpually good 

if ft alls:res the beatlq or killing of one of them. 

Should the probecutor ohoose the letter form, there 

is euthorltg for saying that a jeopardy for the sat 

viewed as a battery or homiolde of one of the men 

will bar ah inQiatment fur it 18 an offencb to the 

othbrj ant? thbrb 18 other authority that till not. 

Obviously there i8 8 Qlfterrrnoe between 01&e volition 

and one tranaaatlon. Cn a view of our oombinsd 

authoritfer thbm is little room for denial that In 

om transeation a pereon nag aomit dirtinct offenoer 

of assault or homiolde upon blr~erbnt pereona, and be 

sbparatbly puniabed for baeh. hat if one by a l indb 

roli,tion ahauld aisobargb into a oolyrbgation of peop18 a fir4-ar~ loaded titi pbaa iOr ahot, ah& bbOh 

of rifty Qiftbreht person6 8hou~1Q bb hit by a pea, 

It would bs rtutling to affira that hr oould bb 

punioh8t¶ for a88aUlt and battery fifty timO8, and 

onab for Qirturbing the meeting. Cbrtainly It would 

violate the spirit if not the lettet, of our 

'twlae-in-Jeopardy gu4raaty; and bvbry proriston 1 

for the 4484 of pereons aaauabd of orlmb la, to be 

intbrprbted liberally, a8 extending to oa8ea within 

its spirit, whether within the letter or not.* 

our examination of the aam on this paint in Texa8 and 

In other juri8QIctioa8 indioetes that the Qitfer~ob in the 

oonalu81cne rbaahod by the various oesea ia brought about 

largely on the gueation or raat 88 to whether th8 $bnt ot 

the Q4f@mhEt was 814310 or pGra1. 

The leading OaBb in Terar upon this point 18 Spannall v. 

Litate, 20% S. V+. SW, where the defendant lntent;o;~~tohot 

end killed one Butler in allse;ed aelf-defensb. 

fired et Sutler lcilletl Che'Qbfbndast'a own ar4 at the amib 

tiEab. l'hb killing of the wifb was apparently unintended. Trio 

inQictn;ents were returned against the Qbfendant, one for killing 

hib wife onathe other for the killing of fiutler. The defendant 

wee fir& tried upon the indictment for the killing of his wife. 

%ie~ oaae was tried on the theory that, if the QbfenQ8nt shot 

Butler in jurti?iabla self-defense, then ha was not guilty of 

the r;iurder for the acoidsntal nhootia$ of his wife, and rlae 

versa. He waa soquitteQ upon the oheZ$e of killing hi8 Wife, 

his noquittal was pleabed in bar of the further proaboution of 

the ohnr,gb of murdel: a8 to sutlbf, and the court of Criminal 

irppbele held that the failure of tbb trial court to adarit 
318 

t:on. iirnest Gulnn, page 6 

evldenoe end submit to the jury the lsausr raised by the plea 

of former aOqu5.ttal required II reverse1 OS the judgment of 

the convlotion of the znurder of butler. ;Ee quote Prom the 

court's opinion as followst 

"If he shot at Butler and in the same aot 

killed tis. Ypennell unintentionally, his guilt 

or b .t~~o enoee f laoh of the honrioides rvould depend on v<hether la shootiw at Butler he aotod 

with mall08 or In selfdofuieo. ~$rumlng that the 

shots were fired at Butler only, and killed l&8. 

Spannell, appellant having no intent or volition 

to indure her, to determine whether he was guilty 

or irument on his trial ror her murder It wa8 

neorssary to dooide whether in 8hootizg at Butler 

ha aot&d In selfdefense or with palioe. On thir 

state of faota the deolrion that he was innooant 

or the murder of Mrs. Spamoll neoersarlly Involve8 

the finding that appellant's act In firing at htlor 

well not 8uoh a8 to conetltute mardar. 

“It follow8 that, nhether in shooting at htler 

appellant aoted with ma11oe, or was justified, ii in 

the tmme aot, with a0 volition to 1n)urr his wife, 

he killed her, there oould be but one offenlte, ad 

the state, prosebuting under separate lndlotmntr 

ror eaoh 0r the homicide*, would be~oonoluded a8 to 

both by the judgment roadmrod In one of them, . ." 

Oook v. State ("Per. Cr. Rep.) 68 S, vi. 898. 

The oplnlon approves the holding In the Cook ease, supra, 

where the question oi the ldentll;y of the act and volition 

resulting In two injurler was ralrod on a plea 0r former 

acquittal. In the Cook ease, the defendant rlred two shots in 

rapid euooesslon at one person, one of the shots killing a 

third person. A plea of'former aoqufttal of assault with intemt to muxder the person et w&ola the shots were fired was 0oneldered a bar to a proseaution ror the murder of suoh third person, the court st&ting that where there is one act, one intent, 

ow volition, as is svidenosd by the testimony of the aseailant 

in this ease, then the arsallant oannot be oonvioted upon an aOt, 

intent and volition ior which be has bean previously aoquitted. 

Thet the Texas oases put the stress on singlenssa of 

intent, In determining whether one or several of'ienees have 
Zen. &nest Cuinn, page 9 

been ooannlttsd In thfs type of oase, is further illustrated 

in the court’s opinion In the Spanneil ease, from rhioh we 

quote at page 359 as follmwt 

"Le do not understand the Ashton Case, 31 

,i'ax. ir. ::. 480, 21 5. 6. 48, the Augurtine Case, 

41 Tex. Cr. B. E9, 52 6. Zt. 79, 96 ASI. iit. Rap. 

765, and the Keaton Case, 41 Tex. Cr. R, 639, 59 S. 

II. 1125, a8 vary1.q from this riew. In eaoh of them 

tla plea was denied upon the gmund that the two 

homiuldes xere the result of aegerrete aofa, but the 

prlzclple oontrolllng them la thus stated lo the 

hshton ease, suprt;: 

* 'The tnre test in auah ocsee must be that, if 

the lntant to kill the one i 

ald existing uistfnut rma an 

btentiOX to kill the other. th t ot annot 

ocnstitute a ~ai~leOffen$O." (&&e~s~or:n~ ours) 

Both the Spannell and the Cook aaaea were reveraed booauao 

of the failure to aubmlt to the jury a plea of iommr aoqulttal. 

The court in bhe Cook ease observed that the rule In reiorenoa 

to pleas of this kind is, that if the plea ahowe upon ita faoe 

that they are diff~erant tranaactlons, Independent of and not 

oonneated with eaoh other, then It 18 proper for the court to 

a+uataln the itate's aotlon to strike out the plea. tit If tha 

plea presents a question of fact, 

jury, MU not for the,aourt. 

then It la a question ror, the 

In other worda, tht'ruls to bo 

deduoed iromth~as two o%aea le that where the ofrensea oharged 

in ~differant indlotmants or informations are ao dlverae aa not 

to admit of proof that they are the name, the aourt may diolde 

the Issue without submitting It to the jury. 

The facts submitted by you present the question or whether 

only one or severe1 offensss are oommltte8 tiere two or taori 

persons are Injured or killed aa the result tf the I la 

naglitzeroe of defendant, without any intent on his @-EC0 par 

oauae-any injury. 

LB &ve b,:en unable to find any I'erus aasea in which this 

apeciilo quratlon has been paaaed on by the Court of Criseinal 

bpgeala. In other jurladlotiana there 5.s a dlreat contliot on 

this point. 

xs under the raota submitted, those oases usually arise 

out of the deetn or Injury of twa or more pereons oauae& by the 

negligent operation or the dsiendant*s autcaob?le. In State 
Hon. hrnsst icuinn, p~ee 8 

Y. Fred1 nd, (Finn.) 273 X. yi. 363, the defendant*r oar oollfded 

with another c.&r on a public hi way resulting in the death of 

tW0 p8r6OR8 in th.8 Other USr. R 8 defendant was oharged In 

each of two indiotmenta with murder In the third dogma, on8 

of Said indictments being baaed on the death of one of Said 

pbsaeq<erS ktd theother indictment on the death of the other 

puaaen~8r. fiottr indiotments are the seme in aubatanoe except 

a6 to name of tile pereon killed; the Oema ~ltneaa8a were produced before the grand jury, end their neaea were Idantlaal as 

indorsed upon eeoh indictment. 'ho defelaent wea aogulttad on 

the ohlrrpe 1~ the first lnd5ctmnt and plaadad foraier aopuittal 

when brought to t~rlal on the other indiotment. Tha court rejaoted the defeods?tta plea ,:lnd held that We protootlon affordad 

bj- the ~;lsu of former jeopardy la not ngalnst the peril of 

seocnd pun~~ohmnt, but against being again tried for the aam 

offerlee. *The constitution61 provision SgSInSt doubla j8opSrdy 

has' the oourt said, “for its objective that no one Shall be 

brought into danger of punlshmct for the ixum offa~~ae mora tbaa 

once. But neither in the PederSl nor In our oun aonatitution 

is there any prohibition a(;cl?net aucoeaaive proaaOut5onS if the 

wrongful act is the ceu~e of separate end aiatinct ~ffas~aaa.~ 

The oourt heid, further, that It IS the Identity of the offinaa, 

and not of the aotl which iS referrab to In the OaaStltutio~l 

guaranty againet putting a person twice In jeopardy, and 

apeoif5caLly, where two or xriora pcraons are injured 5n their 

persons, though It be by a single not, yet, slnae the oonaaquenoas afreot, separately, each person injure4, there la a 

corresponding number of dlstlnot offana8a. Some of the othar 

jurisdictions taking this viou are Oklahoma (7ay V, State, 9% 

r;~~; (2q) 768) , and Illfnoia (Peopls v. Allen, 14 I;. E. (2U) 

. ,lhere is, however, a atron& d5anant5ug o&Ion In tha 

5:llinoia oaee. 

The opposite view - that a Sln6$8 sot 0r neg~5genoe 

on the part of a defendsnt, whloh results In the involuntary 

killing or injuring of two or more human beixigq;. IS ordinarily 

e single ofrenae and 5s sub&Otto but one preaooutlon - la 

held In Iowa (State V. tiheelook, 250 J%. 'i. 619)$ Tam. (Smith 

v. state, 21 :, I,. (Ed) 400); and llew Jersey (State v. Coagrove, 

155 kttl. 891.). liha basis for this view is, in our opialon, 

best expressed In the disaant5ng opinion of Justice tShaW in the 

IllInols oclSe of People Y. kllen, aupra, fmmwhich wa quote 

as r0110wa on page 407; 

"3 am unable to Oonour with the views rrpraaaad 

in the foregoing opinion and beOauea of the Impartan 

of the oonstftutional point involvad feel It aeoeaaery 

E 
xcn. Lrneet Quinn, peg8 9 

to state my views. Lt must be borne in mind that 

under the rule &ixmunoSd in tid.8 aeS8 a oitison nmy 

be tried en ind8fiUitS number of time for the 

Bfme orininel aot until 6 jury ie finally found 

vrhlct ~511 recder a verdlot eU5tSbl8 to the proaeouMon. 'inder this rule, if a gr0aaiy negligent sot 

shoal@ result In a larC;e tMIb8r of deaths, the dsfendant might be tried as many different times as 

there wn?e d8athS Involved. hen though jury after 

jury might find that ha had not been groaaly negli&eat, ha could be oC5p811od to return again 

and again to stand trial on thle one point, wfiioh 

ia the g5at of the 0aaa. 

"The ori~no involved 58 a sLn@e offense 

againat the pea08 and d5gnltJr of the ?a0 

8 

la-4.S. 

the ractieas drivin$ of an automobile. h5a is an 

off8nSS under the %otor Vohlale not whether or not 

any one la injured or killed. This idantiaal 

offane8--l.o., re0k1888 dr5v5ng-+*o0moa iavoluntuy 

mimalaughtar by virtue of th8 Crlminel Coda end 

rogardloaa of any intent of tho dofondmt, if one or 

more parsons are killed and no matter how nany or 

how fow are killed. The dofonastt n8od hovo no 

o&&ml intent of may kind, as the roauxlt of tha 

clot, rather than tho Sntont, Ia what dotorminss tho 

oharaotor of the Crlmo, amI that aharaotsr la ffxed 

by the happening of 080 doSth or memy fromtho 

o-8 W#t. 

"Th5S he6 bean 80 doflaltoly held in So mmy 

oases in other otatoa 88 to make MY revla of the 

authorltioo in th58 d5arontlng opinion entlroly 

unaoa8asary. Some of thoar aeaoa are r*f*rro4 to 

in the majority opinion and no offort 58 medo to 

dist5ngUlSh them, nor aen they be suuaosaefully dirtingulshed. bony of tho eases roforrod to In the 

opinion are Suah as involvo intentional aota on tho 

part of the dofondant and, therefore, Set in point, 

Tho Wnnaaota oaa~o roiiod upon ha8 boon aororaly 

~rltloisod and,~ fn my opinion, runs contrary to tha 

bettor r8SSOaing; Of the 0OUrtS Of JS4my Othor Stator. 

*It la ray v5a that thir opinion dsfinltoly 

tmpafrs that provieion of the Constitution upon 

ublch the dofendont rellea. Under thlm rulo II defend-t would bo subjectid to being put in jeopardy, 
..T 

322 

xonr xrnsst cuinn, page 19 

not only twice but many times, r0r on6 crimind aat. 

T&i8 i8 not OR& OontrsX'y to OUT con6titution but 

Op&llW88iVcl t0 6ky p6r8On6l 86Zl86 Of jU8tiUO. It is to 

be hoped tht the ~Uprslos Court of th8 Units@ Stat66 

Will 8otiti6L4 t&4 OOO46ion to 146k4 an authoritstirs 

&Oi8iOll On th18 iBQO~tUit QU4OtiOR. Th4 4Ourt8 Of 

MfmO8Ot6, Oklshoms 

til4l4661V4~ in Oppo8 i 

apd now of 1111no18, have rangsd 

tiUCl to the older 1iO4 Or Oa868 

/ 

whioh appear to m to hare been bottmr de~idud.~ 

The 0964 of ?sople v'. E&r (N. Y,) l$l H. E. 64, 6lthayrh 

not sn l utmobile oolli6ion 0466, 16 sn iE6trUOtit4 0660 u3on 

this subjinot. It involved the prosooution or th4 drreaumt on 

a oharge or marulaughter ror wrongtu3.l.j 3ausSqg the doa?& of 

tan perrons 66 the result of a rir4, *ioh the dofsn&at 6h0ilia 

hare &VOldud a8 allsg4d. ‘%I. dSfSnd6nt ~66 ahu(ed Wit& 60&in64 

!z 

in fsilin(l to install a 676ta ot sutosmtla sprfnlrlars 

the building wher6 the rim ooourr& All the doaths rssulto6 

fI’OS th4 I- 06U8.. 'fh6 QU66tiOn pr666nt6d for the Oon8idU6- 

tiOCC Or th4 60-t ~66 rh6tbsX it ,lBVoiV46 6 Sln(610 Ofrs~SS 

X68titill(( in the be&h air tea p4r8OIl6 or Whsth8r the d4ilmdant 

U 6Utlty Of tall Of~6C8~46. Th4 olreumtsases of the duth 

in the various oases pro t&mtiorl. Th4 trial eouxt bsui that 

t4n Off4ll6.8 W4X’4 pr68Mted. 9!hi8 holding ~86 rrVU64d by the 

"i;,~;.r~ A&q?wlS, whit& hold thet only I Sin&c @ii.a64 ~66 

. The oourt r&&r 

dir~otlort or the court 6nd ten Separ&te trials 

on ths oharge of nnnofirughtu, all growing out 

of tha railuro of the: nlator8 to inrtall st& 

6UtCmati4 SQriUklOr 6y8t4m iA th8 bUildill& in QU46- 

t-ion, would be eontl’6ry to the 8tiltUt4. ‘iku4 it 

16 that ton indictffi4lCt8 sre not imolred~in this 

osee; rtill the principle hem4 assUt4d .i8 ths 

amae. Thor4 18 no preton8e that reJmtor6 had any 

int4nt in fact to somalt ths arka 0r nan418ughtu. 

The ell~ad criarr war s66id6ntal sn4 inrolunts~~ 

not the result of sn attimstire,intsntionsl sot, 

but the r48ult of mgU@ent isiluro to sot," 

wnderscoring ours) 
&U.I. &RO8t &d.U?l, p4$4 11 

The n4,5lig4noe of tlie aeredent is the giati or the offens 

of eg@aveted eesault with an automobi.14 (Gmjerdo v. Stat4, 

Tex. Cr. xpye., 139 3. iii. fed) a6! end eleo or the 0ri4o44 0r 

y~Qar&ho$.olds. (kenelee v. ;Jtato, i'sx. Cr. "Poe., 87 3.X. 

she defense of contributory negligence Is hot availeb18 to sither a prosecution ior aggravated esrreult wit& eu 

automobile (&iejsrdo V. stats, supre) or us 

a' 

leant homioids. 

(Stov4r v. Stats, T4x. Cr. Xep., 104 5. W. &I) 48). 

Whlls you a0 riot 8tat4 in your 8Ubtis8iOh 0r the feOt8 

that D in aharg4d iu both inrOITIdiOn8 with th4 id4ntioal 

Il4&$8RC4, ~4 pr44Ume rroa four ebla brief that woh i6 ths 

b484 and beas our opinion on that prumiae, 

Negligent homioide OM8i8t8 in tha doim of an aOt, lawful or uhlewful, in a carole88 or ne.gU@nt mnnbr, wh4n there 

18 6ppar4nt deugm of ceueing ths dwth oi so614 cm, but with no 

appsrent int6htion to hill. fiarfi4ld f. 6t8t4 (Ter. Cr. App8.) 

4s 8. u. (Bd) 106. .%44 a180 Arts. 18=-18d3, V.A.P.C. 

Artiole Xl49 or V4rnoag8 Annoteb44 P46al Cod4 m&de 68 

fO1k6wSt ,. ~,~ 

w any arivsr or operator or e mnotw r8hiole 

or motoroyola ahall wi&fully or with n4gligen64, as 

18 d6fined fn tha Psnal Cod6 or this Stats in th6 

title and ohapter on negligent homiaido, 46llido with 

or Ceu44 injury less than death to anr other perron h6 

6bll be h4lU guilty Of e$greTatdd e886Ult, and, Upon 

oohriotion,'8hell bs punlrh6d by fine not 1486 th6n 

!lbntpriro (&3a.q0) Dollars, nor mm4 than On4 Thou88M ($l,OOO.OO) YolLer8, or by imj?ri8o!ku6ht in jail 

not 1488 than on4 month nor more then two 14838, or by 

both suah tine end impri8on64nt~ Un1686 such iUjUri46 

remult in dsclth, in whiah svont tha driver or OBesator 

or any motor tshlola or motoroyol4'6nall bo-dsalt with 

undur the general law or homloi46.W 

Artiole 1633 of v4rnon*o Annotatd Penal C6do r8ed8 a6 

r0iio#4t 

T%e went of proper oaro anb oaution dirtlnguishss 

this off4n84 from erau6ebls homiold4. Th4 dogr44 0r 

oere end caution io eqoh a8 a IEN& of ordinary prullenao 

would use under like CiXOiU#t&We8." 
:” .‘.. 324 

Hon. wriest Oulnn, pap* la 

Thle artiole ooaetltute~ a definition of "n~gligeno*~ 

epplic::ble to proaeoutiona, both for aggravmted a88ault dth 

an automobile and for negligent homfclde. 

(24) 320; Guajardo Y, State, 139 3. O;?z)v&. 

State, 47 

J. a. 

Under the faots here involred, I, was aequftted of the offense of aggravated asmmilt with an automobllo on A. By vlrttm 

of such rerdiot, the jury naoeasarfly found that D wm not 

na~ligsnt. Negllgenes is not 0nl.y.a mxterlal. elmeat of oald 

offenee but the nist theroof. If the %dste nhould now bo yesto a seoond promoution for tim muma material isrua - hli 

nepligenocs - for which he had onoe before been proseouted and 

aoQulttr4. 

lFmm OILI? study ol the prinoiplss amounted by the Tbxao 

oaeoa, we are lead to the conolu+kon that where the prinoiple 

slemnt of the ftrst information or indictmclnt ia al80 the 

prlnaiple +.lenmnt of the ssoond ihformxtlon OS, lndiotmmt, 

the *two offense8w are identlool aab an aoquittal on the trial 

or the flret will bar a submrpent proseoutlon OIJ the soaond. 

Chile the oiisnao of aggrevated aaaault ~4th a rotor 

mhiola and the oiPcn8e of negligent hodaide are dliibrat 

orfemm 13 name they differ only tn lmmati3rial alle4satlonn. 

They are iv----* 0th predloated on tta identioal criminal act or 

omfsrion - the nrgllgenae ct the defendant. 

Thoaa Juriedlotiona, suoh aa IlPlnoia, wLiah hold that 

when two or mme peraons are injured by a single erlminal not, 

them are aim many separate and diatlnot offense@ ati them an 

persona injured by the unlawful eat, baes their ~onolusioiu 

on the propoaitlon that all the iaobs oharged in #aOh is@206- 

mat must be the mame. %y hold that the faot that tha nam# 

of the injured perrono are d~fiermt in the two indiotmnt8 

makes them separate otfw~~er. To tllustrato this strained and 

teohdoel view, we puote from the majority opinion in the 

Illinoie ease of People v. Allen, supre, es followms 

“Cor;ld a jury in the former ease, which 8li6raad 

the manslaughter of Ray Duraa, have returned e verdlet 

for tho manslaughter of Charlea Klalter? In indietment6 

for ofiensee against permona or property Oha nnme af 

the per&m injured nwt be rtated, if known. 'Phe 

neaes8ity ior otstbg thb natee 6f thb per6on injWbd 

~5.s to enable the defendant ta plead elthsr a forBier 
1~ 

Eon. lirnnat Gulnn, pane 19 

aoqultt6l or contiotfon in oaae of a second prosbeaution by the s8me orrense. . . an 800u644 cannot be 

tried for the rnsneleughtsr of any othar person than 

the on4 ch6rc44 by the indiotmcnt upon Maioh he is 

thon being triad. . . In order fcr on4 proseo2tion 

to be a bar to another, it la not sufflolent to ahow' 

tbst thn aot is the some, but it muat bo shown that 

the orrenae, elao, la ths aamo in law and in :aot.* 

That this line of reasoning is not followe6 in Texas ia 

e6tabliah4d by the Bpannoll oea4 and nnny other ~~~86 eaabaa 

In Texas it ia required only that the orime must be the 04mo 

thoui& Oh4 pleadings airier in isunt4r~ir%uuatanoea. The 

aama ofienea meana th4 l&ntieal orimin81 act or odaafon; 

not th4 same offense eo nomine or oae of the am nature. 

18 Tsx. Jur. p. 855. 

The oiienaea are not the same when 84garate offbna~ee alifering in s.thelr elemsnta are aet cut In tha ln&lotmmt, althongb they'r%rias rrom the aam transaction. 12 Tax. Jur. ?&ST. 

Thie ia illuotrated by the reoant Texas oaae of Powall v. Stat., 

14 s. 7,. (2d) 094, where It we4 held that tha aoquittal of a 

motorist proaeouted for murder for striking a pea4striaa 

414 not under a plea of forner aoqulttal bar a proneoution 

ror falling to stop an6 r4nder aid to th4 p4daatrian, sin06 

the motorist oould be both innooent of nurder and guilty of 

not stoppiw, The ooust here eonadd that the kfllfng of 

the padaatrlan and, the aerand6nt~6 failure to atop ana render 

aid ocourrud at or ebout the came tim. 

bishop on Critinsl l.4~ (9th Edition, 192S) aeetlon 3051, 

atetea a6 followat 

*Just prlnoipl4 acoma to auatalnthe following: They (oftenaaa) are not the aame when . . . 

(78) esoh Indictment aete out an offenee aifr6rhg 

in ali its elementta from that In tha oth4r, though 

botE4late to one transaotlon. . .e 

Ti;ose jurisdiction6 following t&e view 4xpreeaed in th4 

majority OpiniOA of the Illinois 0634, in negligenoe oaaaa, 

apparently look at the result6 of the offense rattier than at 

the orfsnse itself. Aem the opinion that such a view is 

incompatible Sith the spirit of the oomtitutlonal guaranty. 

As rtated by Biahop'a Criminal Lew at page 886, "the rbal 

thing punishable theraforo ia valid Oarolea&na6a~” It ia thl6 

oer4l4asneea - negl$.g4nae - that la mad4 crimind. in tha Tua4 
Code releting to negligent homiaiae and aggrevba esseult 

with an automobile. &hi10 we ham found no ‘kar oaae imolring a negligenoe toaa suoh a8 premmtsd by the taots here 

involved, we construe the Gsa8 oalem, on the general QUO@- 

tion, aa oorslitted to the view that only one oSf*nse ia oomn;ttt0a where scveral pereons are frqjured or killed by the sin~la 

ne&l(yent act OS the dofondant. 

You era, therefore, rerprotfully adrieoa that it ie t:lo 

opinion or this Department that, under the taot8 rtatod, D 

may euooeaetully ralss the plea of former eoqul'ttel. 

*la 

FIi-c',': AS? IXAh'T 

ATT~iU1EY CX!%L;KAL w 

EPIA