OFFICE OF THE A’HORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

fionorabls

Xrnert Euirm GountyAttorney Bl Paso, Taraa

bar 

### Sir:

mmmllt with vehiaLe aa to A, brequ*at tP1al ror nt hid0140 oi BR l o ou*fully

r ol80 aoffo rmer

jropardn

en the brmizuberm aaptior+ putHi6

imm yGlr l6ttmr In

l dose not 8ppoar to ham 8kyour 

### opinionthrnon for 

### TM and the oottrt.
6,are standing 61~80 

### to oaah other DLL it&wa~a.nUtolkine 

### tosath@TandD ia runs intrathorn,,

ii ha bo l

oqultted on grarateU a8nul.t with a antor *ohiol* am ~to

### A, in a wbaoquent 

### trialfor ne lgrnt heulaide of B, 384~

he suosssatullyraia6 tbmpf! ea of formsr j6oparUy?”
Artisl6 1, Ysatton 14 of the Taxa 0oetltution 

### p-da68 that8Eon. Exnest Oulnn, page 2

"i.0 person, for the acme oitenoe, shall be twice put in jeoperdyof 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.laalso contained In the Ck~?e of CrMnal Proceaure. Article 8, 

### ~ernon's&motataa C0ae or criminal Procs- &ire.
There are ILOetatutes dofining the 

### termsuse4 

### or dealacing the extent oi the appliaatlon of the ri&t - oaly l naitmente pr0daing *en all6 hew jeopardyaraybe phfkba. mn. 608, 609 and I510

0i ~ernonLf3

AnnotatedCode of CrltinalProoedurc rerb 

### as followr:



### Al-t* 508. "The only epeolalplsao whioh oen 

### bo heard 

### iOrthe 

### aerontmtatat
%. That he ham been oonvicted legally, in a 

### oourtof oompetent jnriu4Iiatlon, upon 

### the 8nm aoousatlon,afterhaving beon tried upon 

### thewrit8 for ths came offense.
"2. ‘but he has beor l~fore hoquittedby 

### a jury of the l

o owatioa

apinst him, in a ootart of oorgetent jurlediotion,*ether the aaquittdslwas regular or irxogular.*



### Art. 609. *Every specialplea shall be vertfled by the affidavitof 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.yinterpret& aa againstpersons ohargedwith orlme,preVSionm intro

### au00ain their favor 

### hhouia be oonstrued llbimllyt and the same distinctionapplleo 

### toa written oon8tltutlon..Griahum v. State, 19 'Sex,



### Cr.Apps.604.

Ur&er the aristlLl(t applioationof the principle Of jWpa$dp, a dfatinctim 18 

### dxawabetween jeopardy~an,nB former..

/ 

## -- 3%

eon. srnebt Guinn, page 8

oonviotlon

### Bnaaaqulttal. The former is predloated upon a proaeoutioo %ischarGed for valid eeueee without a verdlot the latter pro-rupposes end is based upon v~ralotormnderdl. Qrlsham
v. State, auprs.
Inasmuchae you predloate

### yourquestion upon an aoquittal on a ahargo of egcgarated assault with amotor vohiole, we pruumo that you daolro to know whether a plea or fomer aoquittaldll 110 

### underthe raote etatea.

In Texae ther, lo a well reoogulzeddlatincflon batwoon tb 

### ploaaof former ooaviotlonaptIfaram aaquittal. The plea of 

### forirw oonviotion only roqulroe that the tranrotlon, or the faatm oonetituting it, bo 

### themm. 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 nurteln

### ableby th 8 e mo It bar boon l afb. that 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 

### formoraoquit@&, the formr trial iaunthave bem upon the eamm &dontioal orialibnl motfor whfoh the 

### State fs a&ala aeoklaa to proaeontr, hlr. 

### tie oritr mu8t.b the meme in both oam8 though the $kadtnga &iSfer insimatorial oireumtu&ou. 'fhocame offacre muu the.laontisal arimbml lot

### or oriealon;

## nottheeu otr~nw lo 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, 

### morethen one perua im killed 

### or lnjored "at the euae tima,’ a dlftlouit qumtion often a8 to whdil%~~ the 

### personre8pon@lblofor ouoh lnjurirr or 8eath8 ooma%ttmI oarr ottemo 

### or 8steral oiieneaawithin o.rule rolatlng to (LoablejeepaMy.
When two OS more wrongful aOt8 ECO eoglaitted by thm defendant, ao several ahotsOF 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 suohpar~one, there 10 apparent1 no Quwtloa but that,the oifenoee are dletinot and **an** aoqul



### ttal **cst**the **murdeP of**  **@.r** l uaul8 **upon oao**  

### perma is not a bar to a proreautbon:for

### themudor of ar auault upon aukother. The oaee8 gene~al~,~~lauL1Mlngthoeo in 'kxaa, areHon. 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~ Sksltonv. 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 raloabedhis gun and shothim again. 'Ihocourt say8 that thorawarn two scrparote and &ittnot a88aults on the seoond mani anb that in::no eventwould the aoquittal on tho last assault upon the seaoddmen bar a proesootiqm for the murder of the otherman. 880 also the 0888 orKelly 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 lciling the other. P 8he court held thrtthr plea aoul&pot b8 8u8taineUby tk:oevidence, 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~lewrongful aat, a8 a eingle @hot 

### or blow, however, the ease8 are in oonfliat ,a880 whether 8rpTato offenees or only CUM offensewas oomitb8d. 6on1a oaae8 hare bold that there am not reparate offenaeowhere 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 eirylowrongful 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& srldsnceupon the two pro8eoationr involving l clseult

upon ormW%er of two different person8 under mmh aireumatanaei are not ldsntloal 80 a8 to areatsiclenti%y of ofiene88within the rule relating to doubti j@mpardy.
From Bishop’s ibork on Criainal Law,~ (9thMftion, 1963) Ye&ion 1061,we puote as followsr

*i%hsrt, the same blow wourd8 or kills two'mea, itiis 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 ladiotmentwill be bpually good if ft alls:res

the beatlq or killing of one of them. Should the probecutorohoose 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 transeationa pereon nag aomit dirtinct offenoer of assault or homiolde upon blr~erbnt pereona,and be sbparatblypuniabed for baeh. hat if one by a 

### l **indb** roli,tion

ahauld **aisobargb** into a oolyrbgationof peo**p18** a 

### fir4-ar~**loaded titi**  pbaa iOr ahot, ah& **bbOh** of rifty Qiftbreht

### person68hou~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 

### 4484of 

### pereonsaaauabd of orlmb la, to be intbrprbted liberally,a8 extending to oa8ea within its spirit,whether within the letter or not.*

our examinationof the aam on this paint in Texa8 and In other juri8QIctioa8indioetes that the Qitfer~ob in the oonalu81cnerbaahodby the various oesea ia brought about largely on 

### thegueation 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'aown ar4 at the amib 

### tiEab.l'hb

killingof the wifb was apparentlyunintended. 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~oaaewas tried on the theory that, if the QbfenQ8nt shot Butler in jurti?iablaself-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 noquittalwas 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 IIreverse1 OS the judgmentof the convlotionof the znurder of butler. ;Eequote Prom the court's opinion as followst

"If he shot at Butler and in the same aot killedtis. Ypennell unintentionally, his guilt orb.t~~oenee

ofl aoh of the honrioides rvoulddepend on v<hetherla shootiw at Butler he aotod with mall08 or In selfdofuieo. ~$rumlng that the shotswere fired at Butler only, and killed l&8. Spannell,appellanthaving no intent or volition to indure her, to determinewhether he was guilty or irument on his trial ror her murder It wa8 neorssary to dooide whether in 8hootizgat Butler ha aot&d In selfdefense or with palioe. On thir state of faota the deolrion that he was innooant or the murderof 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 

### aotedwith ma11oe, or was justified, ii in the tmme aot,with a0 volition to 1n)urr his wife, he killedher, there oould be but one offenlte, ad the state,prosebuting under separate lndlotmntr ror eaoh 

### 0rthe homicide*,would be~oonoludeda8 to both by the judgment 

### roadmrodIn 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 questionoi the ldentll;y of the act and volition resultingIn two injurler was ralrod on a plea 

### 0rformer acquittal. In the Cook ease, the defendantrlred two shots in rapid euooesslonat 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&olathe shotswere firedwas 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 testimonyof the aseailant in this ease, then the arsallant oannot be oonvioted upon an aOt, intentand volition iorwhich be has bean previously aoquitted.
Thet the Texas oases put the stress on singlenssaof intent, In determiningwhether one or several of'ienees haveZen. &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 homiuldesxere the result of aegerrete aofa, but the prlzclple oontrolllng them la thus stated lo the hshton ease, suprt;:
* 'The tnre test in auah ocseemust be that, if the lntant to kill the one i ald existing uistfnut rma an btentiOX to kill the other. th t ot annot ocnstitutea ~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, Independentof and not oonneatedwith 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 questionof 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 ~differantindlotmantsor informationsare ao dlverae aa not to admit of proof that they are the name, the aourt may diolde the Issuewithout submitting It to the jury.
The facts submitted by you present the question or whether only one or severe1 offensss 

### are oommltte8tiere two 

### or taori persons are Injured or killed aa the result tf the I la naglitzeroe of defendant,without any intent on his par @-EC0 oauae-any injury.

LB &ve b,:en

unable to find any I'erus aasea in which this apeciilo quratlonhas been paaaed on by the Court of Criseinal bpgeala. In other jurladlotianathere 5.s a dlreat contlioton this point.

xs under the raota submitted, those oases usually arise out of the deetn or Injuryof twa 

### or more pereons oauae& by the negligent operationor the dsiendant*s autcaob?le. In StateHon. 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 thedeath of tW0 p8r6OR8 in th.8 Other USr. R 8 defendantwas oharged In each of two indiotmentawith murder In the third dogma, on8 of Said indictmentsbeing baaed on the death of one of Said pbsaeq<erS ktd theother indictment on the death of the other puaaen~8r. fiottr indiotmentsare 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 

### foraieraopuittal when brought to t~rlal on the other indiotment. Tha court rejaoted the defeods?ttaplea ,:lnd held that We protootlonaffordad bj- the ~;lsuof former jeopardyla 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 aucoeaaiveproaaOut5onS if the 

### wrongfulact is the ceu~e of separateend 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 oonaaquenoasafreot, separately, eachperson injure4,there la a correspondingnumber of dlstlnot offana8a. Some of the othar jurisdictionstaking this viou are Oklahoma (7ayV, State, 9% r;~~;(2q) 768) , and Illfnoia (Peoplsv. Allen, 14 I;. E. (2U)

. ,lhereis, however, a atron& d5anant5ug o&Ion In tha 5:llinoia

oaee.
The oppositeview - that a Sln6$8 

### sot0r neg~5genoe on the part of a defendsnt, whloh results In the involuntary killing or injuringof 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 llewJersey (Statev. Coagrove, 155 kttl.891.). liha basis 

### for this view is, in our opialon, best expressed In the disaant5ng opinion of Justice tShaWin the IllInols oclSe

of People Y. kllen, aupra, fmmwhich wa quote as r0110wa on page 407;

"3 am unable to Oonourwith the views rrpraaaad in the foregoing opinion and beOauea of the Impartan of the oonstftutionalpoint involvad feel It aeoeaaery



# Excn. Lrneet Quinn, peg8 9

to statemy views. Lt must be borne inmind that under the rule &ixmunoSd in tid.8 aeS8 a oitison nmy be tried en ind8fiUitSnumber of time for the Bfme orininel aot until 6 jury ie finally found vrhlct~511 recder a verdlot eU5tSbl8 to the proaeouMon. 'inderthis rule, if a gr0aaiy negligent sot shoal@ result In a 

### larC;etMIb8rof deaths, the dsfendant might be tried as many different times as there wn?e d8athS Involved. hen though jury after jurymight 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 ?a08la-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 doflaltolyheld 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 intentionalaota 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 Constitutionupon ublch the dofendont rellea. Under thlm rulo IIdefend-t would bo subjectid to being put in jeopardy,..T 

### 322



## xonrxrnsstcuinn,page19

not only twice but many times, r0r on6 crimind aat. T&i8 i8 not OR& OontrsX'y to OUT con6titutionbut 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 146k4an 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 / 

### whiohappear 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.j3ausSqg 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 QU66tiOnpr666nt6dfor the 

### Oon8idU6- tiOCC Or th4 60-t ~66 rh6tbsX it ,lBVoiV466 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’4pr68Mted. 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 .i8ths 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 giatior the offens of eg@aveted eesaultwith an automobi.14(Gmjerdo v. Stat4, Tex. Cr. xpye., 139 3. iii. fed) a6! end eleo or the 0ri4o44 0r y~Qar&ho$.olds. (keneleev. ;Jtato,i'sx. Cr. "Poe., 87 3.X. she defense of contributorynegligence Is hot availeb18 to sither a prosecution ior aggravated esrreult wit& eu automobile (&iejsrdo V. stats, supre) or usa'leant homioids. 

### (Stov4r v. Stats, T4x. Cr. Xep., 104 5. W. &I) 48).
Whlls you a0 riot8tat4 in your 8Ubtis8iOh 

### 0r the feOt8 that D in aharg4d iu both inrOITIdiOn8with 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. .%44a180 Arts. 18=-18d3, V.A.P.C.
Artiole Xl49 or V4rnoag8 Annoteb44 P46al Cod4 m&de 68 fO1k6wSt

,. ~,~ 

### w any arivsror operator 

### or emnotwr8hiole
or motoroyola ahall wi&fully 

### orwith n4gligen64, as 18 d6fined fn tha Psnal Cod6 or this Stats in th6 title and ohapter on negligenthomiaido, 46llidowith or Ceu44 injury less than death to anr other perron h6 6bll be h4lU guilty Of e$greTatdd e886Ult, and, Upon oohriotion,'8hellbs punlrh6d by fine not 1486 th6n !lbntpriro (&3a.q0)Dollars, nor mm4 than On4 Thou88M ($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 anymotor tshlola or motoroyol4'6nallbo-dsaltwith 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 erau6eblshomiold4. 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 definitionof "n~gligeno*~ epplic::ble

to proaeoutiona,both for aggravmted a88ault dth an automobile and for negligenthomfclde.

**(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 

### thenisttheroof. If the %dste nhould now bo 

### yesto a **seoond** promoution for tim muma material isrua - hli nepligenocs

- forwhich he had onoe beforebeen proseouted and aoQulttr4.
lFmm OILI?

study ol the prinoiplss amounted by the Tbxao oaeoa,we are lead to the conolu+kon thatwhere the prinoiple slemnt of the ftrst informationor indictmclnt ia al80 the prlnaiple +.lenmnt of the ssoond ihformxtlonOS,lndiotmmt, the *two offense8w are identloolaab an aoquittal on the trial or the flret will bar a submrpent proseoutlon OIJthe soaond.
Chile the oiisnao of aggrevated aaaault~4th a rotor mhiola and the oiPcn8e of negligenthodaide are dliibrat 

### orfemm 13

name they differ only tn lmmati3rial alle4satlonn. They are iv----*



### 0thpredloated on tta identioal criminal act or omfsrion - the nrgllgenae ct the defendant.
Thoaa Juriedlotiona,suoh aa IlPlnoia,wLiah hold that when 

### twoor mme peraons are injured by a single erlminalnot, them are aimmany 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 separateotfw~~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 Ohannmeaf the per&m injured nwt be rtated, if known. 'Phe neaes8ity ior otstbg thb natee6f thbper6on injWbd ~5.s to enable the defendant ta plead elthsr a forBier1~ 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 indiotmcntupon 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 e6tabliah4dby 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 ofieneameana 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~eealifering 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 illuotratedby the reoant Texas oaae of Powall v. Stat., 14 s. 7,.(2d) 094, where It we4 held that tha aoquittalof a motorist proaeouted formurder 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 oousthere eonadd that the kfllfng of the padaatrlan and, the aerand6nt~6 failureto atop ana render aid ocourrud at or ebout

### thecametim. 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;osejurisdiction6following 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 incompatibleSith the spirit of the oomtitutlonal guaranty.
As rtated by Biahop'a Criminal Lew at page 886, "the rbal thing punishable theraforo ia validOarolea&na6a~” It 

### ia thl6 oer4l4asneea - negl$.g4nae - that la mad4 crimind. in tha 

### Tua4Code 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~iU1EYCX!%L;KAL w

EPIA