NO. 07-05 -031 7-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B SEPTEM BER28, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ JESS E R. GARCIA, APP ELL ANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 14 0 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; TH NO . 200 2- 400059; H ON ORABLE JIM BOB D AR NE LL, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QU IN N, C .J. , and C AM PBELL and H AN CO CK , J J. OPIN ION Appel lan t J ess e R . G arci a w as conv icted o f fail ure to st o p a n d r e nder ai d and sent enced to confine ment i n th e Insti tuti onal D iv is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Corrections for tw o y ears an d six mon ths. T hrou gh fo ur issu es he cont end s the trial court er re d by ( 1) admi tti ng hi s o ra l sta tement made w it hout Mi ra nda wa rn ing s, and ( 2) made with o u t th e w ar nin g s req uired by Tex as sta tute; ( 3) su bmitti ng a c harg e c ontai nin g improper co nductel ements ; and (4 ) submi tti ng a c harg e tha t di d notdi sti nct ly se t fort h the law appl ic abl e to the c ase. F ind ing appel lan t was not i n c ust ody for p ur pos e s o f theMi ra nda v . Ar izona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966 ). 1 Te x . Code Cri m. Proc. Ann . art. 38 .22 (Vernon 200 5). 2 2 statu tory and constitu tiona l warnin g s , and w as no t egregi ously harme d by any charge error, w e aff ir m. Back g ro und Ped estrian Earl Pow ell suf fered severe injuries w hen stuck by a hit-an d-run m oto rist in Sl aton, Tex as. Law enforc ement pe rs onnel i mmediat ely beg an s earchi ng for t he re spons ibl e par

ty but w ere hi ndered by

t h e a bsenc e of forens icev ide nce at t he s cene. Slato n po lice of

f icer Billy Tim ms investigated lea ds w hich eventu ally le d him t o ap pellan t’s g ir lfri end, Jani e M arti nez . Hi s c ommunic ati on w it h M s. Ma rt ine zi n tur n l ed to appel lan t. Timms c ontacted a p p ell ant a t hi s wor kpl ace, C oronado H ig h Sc hool i n Lubbo ck
. At thi s s tage o f

t h e i n ves ti g ati on, a ll su spects other than appel lan t had been cl eared. Appe llantag re ed to sp eak w it h Timms and v olu ntar il y ac compani ed hi m to t he s chool cafeter ia w here Timms re corded t hei r co nv ersat ion
. From bac kg ro und noi ses on t he re cordin g , i t app ears a ppel lan t and Timms w ere notal one i n the sc hool ca feteri a dur ing t h e in t e rvi e w. The in ter

v iew l ast ed s omethi ng l ess than ei g hte e n m in u tes
. Appel lan t was not w ar ned pursuantto Mi ra nda v . Ar izona and t he C ode of C ri minal Procedu re before or

1 2 dur ing the int er

v iew
.3

In t he i nter

v ie w, T im ms’ i nit ial q uest ion ing of appel lan t focus ed on the c ur re nt loc ati on of appel lan t’ s v ehi cl e from the perspecti v e that Jani e Ma rt ine z may hav e been t he driv er w ho struck Po w ell. App ellant did not initially disagree that Martinez w as driv ing his v ehi cl e on the n ig ht of the ac ci dent. Rather , appell ant mainta ine d at the time in q uest ion it w as dar k, Pow ell ’s inj ur ies w ere the re sul t of an acc ide nt, and appel lan t a n d Marti nez w oul d hav e s topped if appel lan t pos ses sed li abi li ty i nsurance cov erag e. Approx imat ely

el ev en minutes into the inter v iew , Timms bluntl y

told a ppel lan t t hat he need ed to kn ow who w as the d ri v er and pass eng er

at the t ime of the ac ci dent. Acc ordin g to the off ic er , if appel lan t w as a pas seng er he was a w it ness but if he was the driv er, charges w ould be f iled. He urged app el la n tt o h e lp himse lf and be ho nestin his re spons es. Ap pel lan t then sta ted the onl y re ason “we di dn’ t s top o r I di dn’ t s top. W ell l et me tell y ou I’m the on e tha t w as driv ing. And uh the only reaso n I didn ’t stop was becau se I di dn’ t hav e no ins urance. An d the y had sus pended myl ic ense. ” Timms resp o n d e d , “I t ell y ou w hat I ’d li ke to do Je ss e. I’ d l ik e to g o bac k. If y ou don’ t mi nd, I ’l l tak e y ou bac k t o Sl aton w it h me. W e’l l si t dow n and do a sta tement and as soon as w e get throu gh w ith the state me nt I’l l cut you loose, take y ou to the ho use a nd I’ll tak e, pu t all thi s paper

w or k tog ether , ru n it to the DA ’s off ic e, and let them s ee w hat t hey w ant t o do w it h i t.” Appel lan t re pli ed, nonrespon si v ely , t hat h is w ind shi eld broke becau se he washed his ca r and was operati ng the heater
. Timms as ked, “ Di d hi s face hitthe car?” Ap pel lan t respo nde d, “I don ’t reme mb er noth ing. I just reme mb er t he imp act.” T imm s add ed, “This4

isn’t the f irst one of

these I’v e e ve r worked.” Appe llant th en volunte ered remo rse at his failu re to sto p and re it erated that the only reaso n he faile d to sto p w as his l ack of li abi li ty ins urance cov erag e. Nea r the c oncl usi on of the int er v iew , w hen app ellant as ked to c all hi s g ir lfri end, Timms respon ded, “W hy don’ t you w ait .” Appel lan t then cal led hi s e mploy er tel li ng hi m he had to lea v e w or k becau se someth ing had come up and he w oul d cal l him th e fo llo wing m o rn in g. L a t e r t h a td a y a p p e ll a n tga ve a wri tt e n st a t e m e n tp re c e d e d b y Mi ra nda w arnings. Among othe r ave rm e n ts in the doc ument, appel lan t s tated , “ I t old [O ff ic er Timms dur ing the ir i nte rv iew

at app ellant ’s workplace ] I d idn’t know the add ress [w here app ellantlef t his v ehi cl e] an d he ask ed i f I woul d tak e hi m to it. I to ld h im I w oul d s how hi m w here i t was parke d.” Appel lan t was subs eq uentl y i n d ict e d a nd tr ied for fai lure to sto p and re nder ai d. T ex. T ransp . Code A nn. § 5 50. 021 (Ve rnon 199 9). A jury set pun ishm entat tw o y ears, six months i n the Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Justi ce. Ap pel lan t ti mely appeal ed. Di sc uss ion Appel lan t p resent s four i ss ues for rev iew
. In hi s first and s econd i ss ues, he cont ends the tr ial co urt er re d by ov er ru li ng hi s o bje cti on to the admis si on of hi s o ra l s t a t e me n tb e c a u s e h e d i d n o tre c e i v e t h e w a r n i n g s o f Mi ra nda and art. 38. 22. In his third5

a n d fo u rt h iss u e s, ap p e lla n t c la im s t h e co u rtco m m it te d egre gio u s e rro r by s u b m it ti n g a charg e i nst ru cti ng the jur y of improper

co nducti ss ues. Iss ues One a nd Tw o: A dmis si bil ity of the O ra l Stat ement W e rev iew

the tr ial co urt’ s a d m iss io n o f ev ide nce under

an a buse of dis creti on sta ndard. W

eath e rr ed v . St ate, 15 S. W .3d 540 , 542 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 0). W e mu st uphol d the tr ial co urt' s r uli ng i f the admi ss ion of the e v ide nce was w it hin the z one of re asona ble di sag re ement. Id. ( cit i n g Mo n t g o m e r y v . S ta te , 8 1 0 S.W .2d 3 72, 3 90 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 90, op. on reh'g))
. T h e p ro s e c u t io n m a y n o tu s e st a t e m e n t s , wh e t h e r e xc u lp a t o ry o r i n c u lp a t o ry, ste mming from c ust odi al int er ro g ati on of the defendant unl ess i t demons trates the use of procedu ra l safeg uards effect iv e to sec ure the pr iv il eg e ag ain st sel f-in cr imi nati on. Mi ra nda v. Ar izona, 384 U. S. 4 36, 4 44, 8 6 S. Ct . 160 2, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1 966)
. The Mi ra nda w ar nin g s are codi fied in art. 38.22 § 2( a)
. Jones v. State, 944 S. W .2d 6 4 2 , 6 5 0 n . 1 1 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p . 1 9 9 6 )
. A rt i c l e 3 8
. 2 2 s e c . 3 ( a ) p ro v i d e s t h a tn o o ral sta tement made as a resul t of cu sto dia l int er ro g ati on sh all be a dmis si ble ag ain st the acc used in a cr imi nal proceed ing unl ess , among other thi ng s, pr ior to g iv ing the s tatement , the a cc used re cei v ed th e s tatut or y w ar nin g s o f art. 38.2 2 s ec. 2( a)
. Mi lle r v. Sta te, 196 S.W .3d 2 56, 2 64 ( Tex .App. –For t W orth 20 06, p et. re f’d)
. Th e re q u i re me n to f Mi

ra nda that pol ic e adv is e a person of r ig hts pr ior to q uest ion ing appl ies i f the person is “ in cus tody or othe rw is e depr iv ed of hi s freedom of act ion i n any6

significan t w ay.” Mi

ra nda , 384 U .S. at 44 5; Sta nsbu ry v. California , 511 U .S. 318, 322, 114 S.C t
. 1 5 2 6 , 1 2 8 L
. E d
. 2 d 2 9 3 ( 1 9 9 4 )
. T h e d e t e r mi n a t i o n w h e t h e r a p e rs o n i s i n c u sto dy w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f Mi ra nda m ustbe made on a case by ca se basi s c onsi der ing al l the obj ect iv e c ircums tanc es. Sta nsbu ry, 511 U .S. at 32 3; Dowth itt v. State , 931 S.W .2d 2 44, 254 -55 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 96). A pe rson is in custo dy only if , und er all the circum stan ces, a reason abl e, inn ocent person w oul d bel iev e that his freedom of mov ement was re strain ed to t he deg re e as soc iat ed w it h an ar re st. See D owthitt , 931 S.W .2d a t 255
. The Stat e arg ues the e v ide n ce shows t hat a ppel lan t was not i n c ust ody w hen he ga ve h is o ra l s t a t e m e n tt o o f f ic e r T im m s . W e a gre e , a n d o ve rr u le a p p e ll a n t ’s f irs ttwo issues.Cou rt s h av e h eld that , ordin ar il y , w hen a person v olu ntar il y ac compani es a l aw enforc ement officer

to a c ertai n l ocat ion , ev en th oug h the person knows o r shoul d k now that the o ff ic er

su spects he o r sh e m a y h av e c ommitt ed or may be i mpli cat ed i n the commi ss ion of a c ri me, th e person is not rest ra ine d or "in c ust ody ." Mi ller , 196 S.W .3d a t 264 ( citi ng Livi ngston v . St ate, 739 S. W .2d 3 11, 3 27 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1987) , cer t. denied , 487 U .S. 1210, 101 L. Ed. 2d 8 95, 1 08 S. C t. 2858 ( 1988) ). W hen t he c ircums tanc es re v eal a pe rs on acts onl y on t he i nv it ati on, req uest , or ev en urg ing of law enforc ement, and there are no threats , ei ther ex press or

i mpli ed, t hat h e or

sh e w il l be ta ken fo rci bly , t he acc ompani ment i s volu ntar y , and the person is not in cus tody
. Shi flet v . St ate , 732 S.W .2d 6 2 2 , 628 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1985) ; see Ander son v. State, 9 3 2 S
. W
. 2 d 5 0 2 , 505 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1996) , cer t. denied, 521 U .S. 1122, 138 L. Ed. 2d 1 019, 117 S. C t. 25177

(1 997) (Fou rt h Amendment case)
. Howev er , an in ter ro g ati on th at be g ins as nonc ust odi al mayes cal ate i nto a cus todi al int er ro g ati on based on th e c onduct of l aw enforc ement du ri ng the e ncoun ter
. Us ser

y v . St ate, 651 S.W .2d 767 , 770 (Tex.Crim.App . 198 3). The C o u rto f C r i mi n a l A p p e a l s h a s o b s e r v e d a tl e a s tfo u r

g e n e ra l c i rc u ms t ances that mayco nst it ute c ust ody : ( 1) w hen t he suspect i s p hy si cal ly depr iv ed of hi s freedom of act ion i n any

si g nific ant way , ( 2) w hen a law enforc ement officer

tell s the sus pecthe canno t l eav e, ( 3) w h e n l a w enforc ement officers c re ate a si tuati on th at woul d l ead a re asona ble person to be li ev e hi s freedom of mov ement i s s ig nific antl y rest ri cte d, an d ( 4) w hen there is prob able ca use to arrest and la w e nforcem ento f

f icers d o no t tell the su spect he i s free to l eav e. Dowth itt, 931 S. W .2d a t 255
. In th e f irst through third situa tions, the restriction on f re edo m of movem entmust amount t o the deg re e ass oci ated w it h an ar re st as oppos ed to an i nv est ig ati v e det enti on. Id
. Here, du ri ng the int er v iew appel lan t was not s ubj ectto re str icti on of m ov ement to the deg re e as soc iat ed w it h an a rrest
. Therefore, ou r dis cus si on tu rn s t o the fourt h s it uati on address ed i n Dowth itt , probabl e c ause to ar re st. The off ic er ’s kn ow led g e of probabl e c ause must be manifested to the suspect, and suc h mani festati on coul d occ ur if i nformati on s ust ain ing the probabl e c ause is rela ted b y the o ff ic er

to th e s uspect or

by the sus pectto the o ff ic er . Id.;se e R uth v . St ate , 645 S.W .2d 4 32, 4 36 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1979) ( hol din g thata s uspect' s "s tatementthathe h ad shotthe victim imme diate ly focuse d the inv estigation on him and f urnishe d prob able cause8

to be li ev e tha t he had c ommitt ed an offense; aft e r that ti me, th e c onti nued i nter ro g ati on mu st be con sidered a custod ial one "). Ho w ev er , th e ma ni fes ta ti on o f prob ab l e c au s e do es n ota ut om at i c al l y e s ta bli sh cus tody
. Rat her , cust ody attaches if the manifestat ion of probabl e cause, co mbined w it h other ci rc umstan ces , w oul d lea d a re asona ble person to be li ev e tha t he is under rest ra int to t he deg re e as soc iat ed w it h an ar re st. Dowth itt, 931 S. W .2d a t 255
. Situa tions where the man ifesta tion o f p roba ble cause trig gers custody are unusu al. State v . Stevens on , 958 S.W .2d 824 , 829 n.7 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 97). I ll u s t ra t iv e is Dowth itt , w here p robabl e c ause g av e r is e to cus tody w hen t he defendant made an inc ri minat ing st atement after an hours- lon g i nter ro g ati on s ess ion dur ing w hic h he ex per ien ced a s ubst anti al per iod w it hout food, his compl ain ts of ex haust ion and req uest s to see his w ife w ere i gnored, and he was accom pan ied on restroom brea ks by auth orities. 931 S. W .2d a t 257 and 252- 254. W e d o n o tfi n d the unus ual ci rc u ms t a n c e s o f Dowth itt presenthere. And ev en tho ugh during q uest ioning a perso n ma y u tter respo nses im plicating himse lf or herself

in an offense, t his al one doe s n ot t ri g g er cu sto dy
. Thus, in Scott v . St ate, 165 S. W .3 d 27 (Tex .App. –Aus ti n 2005) , re v’ d on other

gr ounds , 227 S.W .3d 6 70, N o. P D- 0862- 05, 2 007 Tex . C ri m. App. LEX IS 6 97, a t * 54 ( Tex .C ri m.App. June 6, 2 0 0 7) the acc used g av e a w ri tten statement after par ti ci pati ng i n approx imat ely twenty hours o f poli ce q uest ion ing spread ov er

f iv e day s w it hout rec eiv ing a Mi ra nda w ar nin g . 165 S. W .3d a t 42. R ely ing on Dowth itt , the accuse d argued th e trial court erred in de nying his mot ion to supp ress his9

sta tement becau se probabl e c ause a ro se t h e f irst day of q uest ion ing w hen he admitted involv em entin t he n oto rious Aust in “y ogurt shop murd ers.” Id. D is ag re ein g , t he appe ll ate cour t not ed no co n troll ing auth or ity for t he proposi ti on th at l eng thy q uest ion ing al one creates cu sto dy
. Id. I tt h e n d i s t i n g u i s h e d t h e i n t e r ro g a t i o n fa ct s o f Dowthitt, dis cus sed a b o ve , and thos e before i t. In Scott , t he ac cus ed recei v ed breaks , a lt h o u gh cig arette breaks outs ide the bui ldi ng w ere escor ted so that he could retur n to the sec ure q uest ion ing area , am ple food and drink w ere provided, of f icers too k him hom e at the end of each day’s q uest ion ing , and al thoug h hi s h ome w as cl andes ti nel y under su rv eil lan ce, the cour

t found this did no t legally

restrict his moveme nt. 165 S.W .3d at 42 and 42 n.6 , n.7 . Upon th ese facts the c our

t affirmed the t ri al cour

t’ s fin din g s t hat a re asona ble person in the posi ti on of the a cc used wou ld n o t beli ev e hi s freedom of mov ement rest ra ine d to the d eg re e ass oci ated w it h a for mal ar re st. Id. at 43. In t he ma tt er

a t ha nd , as no te d, ap pe l l an t v ol un ta r i l y a c c om pa ni ed O ffic er

Ti mms to the sc hool cafeter ia for q uest ion ing ear ly in the afternoo n. Back g ro und so u n d s a nd v oic es on th e i nter

v iew recordin g i ndi cat e the y we re n o t alone. The i nter v iew l ast ed someth ing l ess than ei g hteen minut es and for much o f this ti me the dis cus si on focused on appel lan t as a w it ness . Approx imat ely tw elv e minutes into the i nter v iew , w hen app ell ant admitted h e w as the d ri v er of the acc ide nt v ehi cl e, Off ic er T imms re spond ed by

req uest ing appel lan t v olu ntar il y

( “i f y ou don’ t mi nd” ) acc ompany hi m to t he l o ca ti o n o f

t h e ac ci dent v ehi cl e and then to the stati on for a w ri tten st atement (“ I as ked him if he woul d g o to Sl aton and g iv e a w ri tten sta tement” ). O ff ic er Timms tol d appe lla n t th a t after the sta tement he w oul d “ cut[app ell ant] loo se, ” tak e hi m home, a nd once the paperwor k w as pre pared, l et10

the d is tr ict attor ney ’s off ic e “ see w hat t hey w antt o d o w it h i t.” W hil e a c ust ody deter minat ion i s a n obj ect iv e as ses sment, Sta n s bury 511 U.S. at 32 3, it is nevertheless noteworth y t h a t, before r uli ng on t he admi ss ibi li ty of appel lan t’ s o ra l sta tement, the tr ial jud g e heard Officer

Timms’ tes ti mony

thatappel lant was at al l ti mes fre e to lea v e. The judge also ha d be fore him app ellant ’s w rit t e n s tate me nt, reco unt ing both Of f icer Tim ms’ request th a ta p p e ll a nt sho w him th e locat ion of

the accid entv ehicle a nd a ppe llant’s v olun tary assen t. At the conclu sion of the interview , in a telep hon e conversation w ith his employ er , app ell ant repor ted h e had to l eav e wor k for the day but w oul d c all the employ er the fol low ing mor nin g . Base d up on th e tot ality of circumsta nces, w e do n o t f ind th at ap pellan t w as in custo dy for Mi

ra nda and art. 38.22 pur poses at any ti me dur ing hi s recorded i nter v iew w it h Off ic er T imms. Thus, the a bsenc e of st atuto ry and cons ti tuti onal w ar nin g s d id not render appel lan t’ s o ra l sta tement ina dmis si ble under e it h er the Fi fth Amendment to t he U nit ed Stat es Con sti tuti on and Mi ra nda , or u n d e r art. 38.22. Ac cordin g ly , t he tr ial co urt di d not abuse i ts dis creti on i n admi tti ng appel lan t’ s o ra l sta tement. Iss ues Three and F our : C harg e Er ro r By hi s t hird and fourth is sues appel lan t arg ues the defini ti ons of t he c ulp abl e mental s ta te s o f “ i nt en ti on al l y ” a nd “ k no w i ng l y ” i n th e c ou rt’ s c ha rg e and the u s e of t ho s e te r ms in the a ppl ic ati on parag ra ph of the charg e w ere er ro neous , and har med hi m. W e di sag re e. An app ell ate c our

t’ s rev iew

of all eg ed er ro r in a j ur y c h a rge i nv olv es a two- ste p proces s. Abdnor

v. Sta te, 871 S.W .2d 726 , 731 (Tex.Crim.App
. 199 4). First, w e mu st11

deter mine w hether

er ro r occ ur re d. Second, if w e find er ro r, then w e det er mine w hether suffici ent h ar m resul ted from the er ro r to req uire rev ersal
. Id. at 73 1- 32. T he relevant d ef initions a nd th e ap plication paragraph c o nta ined in the cou rt’s charge to th e jury

read as follows: A perso n acts inte ntion ally , or w ith inte nt, wi th respe ct to the natu re of his condu ct or

to a resul t of hi s c onduct w hen i t i s h is co nsc iou s o bje cti v e or desi re to eng ag e i n the co nduct
. A perso n acts know ingly , or w ith knowledge, w ith respe ct to the nat ure of his con d u ct o r t o c i rc u ms t a n c e s s u r ro u n d i n g h i s c o n d u ct w h e n h e i s a w a re of the n ature of hi s c onduct or thatthe ci rc umstan ces ex is t. * * * Now , bea ring in min d the foregoing instructio ns, i f y ou fin d f rom th e evidence beyond a reason able dou bt th at on o r abou t April 10, 20 02, in Lubb ock Cou nty , Tex as, as all eg ed in the ind ictment, the d efendant, J ESSE GAR CI A, did inte n t io n a ll y

or know ingly

driv e a vehicle w hich w as the n an d the re involv ed i n an acc ide nt resul ti ng i n i nju ry to Ear l Pow ell , and d id t h e n and there i ntent ion all y

or kn ow ing ly

l eav e the sc ene of

su ch acc ide nt k now ing that sai d ac ci dent had oc cur re d, w it hout firs t g iv ing his name and add re ss to any person, and w ithou t rende ring reaso nab le a s s is tan ce to Ea rl Pow ell, then y ou w il l find th e defendant g uil ty , and so sa y by y our v erdict. (capita liz ation in orig inal) Sect ion 550. 021 of the Tex as Trans por tati on C ode prov ide s, in re lev ant p art: (a ) The operator

of a v ehi cl e i nv olv ed i n an acc ide nt resul ti ng in inj ur y to or dea th of a person shall: (1 ) immedi atel y sto p the v ehi cl e at the sc ene of t he acc ide nt or as cl ose to t he s cene as poss ibl e; (2 ) immedi atel y

retur n to the s cene of t h e a cc ide nt i f the v ehi cl e i s n ot s topped at t he s cene of the ac ci dent; and (3 ) re main at t he s cene of the ac ci d e nt un ti l the o perator compl ies w it h the req uirements of Sect ion 550. 023.12 * * * (c) A perso n com mits a n of fense if th e pe rson do es no t stop or does no t com ply w it h the req uirements of thi s s ect ion
. Te x . Tra ns. Cod e Ann . § 550 .02 1 (Verno n 19 99). It is apparent t hat § 550. 021 doe s n ot s peci fy the req uis it e c ulp abl e mental st ate for acti onabl e c onduct nor does it “pl ain ly

dispen se” w it h proof of mental cu lpa bil ity . Und er suc h c ircums tanc es, the Penal C ode s uppl ie s t he c ulp abl e mental st ate w hic h the Sta te must prov e. Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 6.02 (b ), ( c)
. App ellantcites St. Cl

air v. State, 26 S. W .3d 8 9, 98 ( Tex . Ap p.–W aco 2000, pet. re f’d) and Mo ra les

v. Sta te , 673 S.W .2d 6 97, 699 (Tex .App. –Co rp us Chr is ti 1984, no pet.) fo r th e pro p o si t i o n t h a t “[ f ]a ilu re to st o p an d ren d e r ai d is a circ u m st a n ce s-s u rro u n d in gc on du ct offen s e. ” F rom t ha t prem i s e, h e arg ue s t ha t th e c ha rg e’ s d efi ni ti on s o f th e te r ms inten tiona lly

and kn owi ngly

were o v erly

b road a nd errone ous beca use the y d ef ined those ter ms w it h re s p e ctt o t h e n a t u re o f c o n d u cta n d t h e re s u l to f c o n d u cti n a d d i t i o n t o t he k n o w l e d g e o f c i rc u ms t a n c e s s u r ro u n d i n g t h e c o n d u ct. See Coo k v . St ate, 885 S.W .2d 485, 491 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1994)
. The dis cus si ons of cul pabl e mental stat e i n St. Clair , 26 S.W .3d a t 98, and Mo ra les , 673 S.W .2d a t 699 , beg in w it h Gos s v . St ate, 582 S.W .2d 7 82 (T ex .C ri m.App. 1979)
. In Goss , t h e c o u rtc o n s i d e re d a c h a l l e n g e t o a n i n d i ct me n tthat alleged th e de fend antinten tiona lly and knowi ngly

ope rated a vehicle th at w as involv ed in a c oll is ion , butdi d not al leg e the defendant knew the acc ide nt ha d oc cur re d. Id . at783, 785. The cour

t hel d know led g e an acc ide nt ha d oc cur re d i s a n el ement of the offense of13

failu re to sto p and re nder ai d, c ontrast ing the treatment of t he know led g e el ement un der the rev ised pe nal cod e w ith prior law thattreate d the defend ant ’s lack of knowl edge as a defensi v e matt er . Id . at 785. The cour t conc lud ed that the cul pabl e mental st ate req uired for the o f fense “is tha t the accuse d had kn owl edge of the circum stan ces surroun ding his cond uc t( V.T .C.A., Pena l Code Se c. 6.0 3(b)), i.e. , had kn ow led g e tha t an acc ide nt ha d occ ur re d." Id.;ac cor

d, Bake r v. State, 974 S.W .2d 750 (Tex . App.–San Antoni o 1998, pet. ref ’d) ( Gossanal y si s a ppl ies to offense as codified in §§ 550. 021 and 550. 023, Tex as Trans por

tati on C ode)
. W hil e Gossand cases fo llo w ing i t c lea rl y req uire tha t t he St ate prov e the defendant had k now led g e of the ci rc umstan ces , t hat i s, know led g e an acc ide nt had oc cur re d, we do not read s uch cas es to ho ld that the only cu lpa ble mental st ate appl ic abl e to the o ffense prosc ri bed by§ 55 0.021 is the know led g e of ci rc umstan ces sur ro undi ng the condu ct. Ma n y cas e s, in clu d in g Mo ra les , 673 S .W .2d at 698 , list the elem ent s of the of fense to includ e t h e d ri ve r’ s inten tiona l and kno w ing fa ilure to stop and take th e stat uto rily re q uired acti ons. See, e.g. , Steen v. State, 640 S .W .2d 9 12, 9 15 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 82); Al lenv. Sta te , 971 S.W .2d 7 15, 7 17 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4 D is t.] 1998 no pet .) ; Sher ida n th v. State , 950 S.W .2d 755, 759 (Tex .App. –For t W orth 1997, no pet. ). Suc h el ements focus not o n k now led g e of ci rc u m st a n ces but on th e nat ure of the defendant’ s c onduct. Cf
. Sher ida n , 950 S .W .2d a t 759 (no ting th at “g rav am en of t he of fense relates to the act or’s fa ilu re to st o p an d ren d e r re a so n a b le as sis ta n ce ”). Con sid e rin g Goss a n d the cas es fo l l o w i n g i ti n l i g h to f Steen a n d t h e o t h e r ca s e s c o n t a in in g t h a t li s t in g o f t h e e le m e n t s , we14

conc lud e that § 550.021 encompas ses ele ments that re lat e to both th e ci rc umstan ces sur ro undi ng co nductand the n ature of cond uct
. App ellant ’s indictme nt includ ed th e allegation s t hathe inte ntion ally and knowi ngly drov e the v ehi cl e i nv olv ed i n the ac ci dent, and that he inten ti onal ly and know ing ly

l eft the scene of the accid ent , knowing thatthe accid enthad occurred
. W e f ind the trial court did not e rr by defini ng , i n i ts charg e, i ntent ion al and k now ing co nduct wit h r e ferenc e to the nature of appel lan t’ s c onduct. W e agree w ith ap pellan t, ho w ever, that th e cha rg e’s def inition o f inten tiona l condu ct shoul d nothav e c onta in e d t h e r e ference to a re sul t of hi s c onduct. See Gar za v . St ate , 794 S.W .2d 497 , 500 -01 (Te x .Ap p.– Corpus Christi 199 2, pe t. ref'd) (charge should co nta in onl y thatpor ti on of the sta tutor

y defini ti on w hic h cor re spond s to the c ulp abl e mental st ate prosc ri bed by

t h e o f fe nse)
. W e next c onsi der w hether the er ro r re sul ted i n actual , as oppos ed to theo re ti cal , har m to a ppel lan t. Patr ick v . St ate, 906 S. W .2d 481, 49 2 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1995)
. Appel lan t di d notrais e the obj ect ion s t o the ch a rge i n the tr ial co urt t hat h e now urg es. W hen an appel lan t fail s t o preser v e c harg e errorthroug h a t imel y and proper obj ect ion , t hen t he appe ll ate c our t mus t dec ide w hether

the er ro r w as so eg re g iou s t hat t he a p p e ll ant d id not recei v e a fai r and i mpart ial tr ial
. Al m anza, 6 8 6 S
. W
. 2 d 157, 171 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1985) ; Hutch v. State, 9 2 2 S
. W
. 2 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 1 (T e x. Cr im
. A p p . 1 9 9 6 ). " J u rycharg e er ro r is eg re g iou sl y har mf ul if it affect s the v er y basi s of t he cas e, d e p rive s t he defendant of a v alu abl e ri g ht, or v it all y affect s a defensi v e the or y ." Stuhler

v. Sta te, 21815

S.W .3d 7 06, 7 19 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2007)
. Our rev iew for e g re g ious h ar m req uires cons ide ra ti on of the enti re j u ry c h a rg e, t he ev ide nce inc lud ing the cont est ed i ss ues and w eig ht of the probati v e ev ide nce, t h e arg uments of couns el, and any othe r re lev ant infor mati on rev eal ed bythe record of the tr ial as a w hol e. Id. Rev iew of thos e factors d oes not rev eal thata p p e lla n t suffered eg re g iou s h ar m from the i ncl usi on of the re ferenc e to re sul t of co nducti n the ch arg e’s defini ti on of the ter m in tenti onal ly
. W e overrule appe llant’s third an d fourth issues. Con cl usi on Hav ing ov er ru led appel lan t’ s four i ss ues, we aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice

Publ is h.