Court Opinion

ID: 4142882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-02-18 03:27:04.061589+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:23:51.403892
License: Public Domain

OFFICE     OF THE A’HORNEY     GENERAL     OF TEXAS
                             AUSTIN

fionorablsXrnert Euirm
Gounty Attorney
Bl Paso, Taraa

bar   Sir:

                                                          mmmllt with
                                                  vehiaLe aa to A,
                                                 brequ*at tP1al    ror
                                                 nt hid0140 oi BR
                                                 lo o u*fully   r o l80
                                                 a o f fo r mer
                                                              jropardn

                                        en the brmizuberm aaptior+
                                         putHi6imm yGlr l6ttmr   In

                                     l do se no t 8p p o 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
                                      ii ha bo loqultted on
                      runs intrathorn,,
                     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.0person, 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~?eof CrMnal
Proceaure. Article 8, ~ernon's&motataa C0ae or criminal Procs-
&ire.
     There are ILOetatutes dofining the terms use4 or dealacing
the extent oi the appliaatlon of the ri&t - oaly lnaitmente
pr0daing *en all6hew jeopardy araybe phfkba.     mn.   608, 609
and I5100i ~ernonLf3Annotated 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 lo o wa tio apinst
                        a       him, in a ootartof 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
                       %bi.lsetatntss are to be 8trfatl.yinter-
not Wlthln It6 WOTilCIIII*
pret& aa against persons oharged with orlme, preVSionm intro-
au00a in their favor hhouiabe 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 jW-
pa$dp, a dfatinctim 18 dxawa between jeopardy~an,nBformer
                                                                                   -- 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 ao-
         quittal dll 110 under the raote etatea.
                 In Texae ther, lo a well reoogulzed dlatincflon batwoon tb
         ploaa of former ooaviotlon aptIfaram 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 nurteln-
         able by th 8 e mo        It bar boon la 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 ao-
         quit@&, 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 insimatorial oireumtu&ou.     'fhocame offacre
         muu     the.laontisal arimbml lo t or oriealon; not the eu
         o tr ~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, 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 oarrottemo or 8steral
         oiieneaa within     o.rule rolatlng to (LoablejeepaMy.
               When two OS more wrongful aOt8 ECO eoglaittedby thm de-
         fendant,  ao several ahots OF bLowe,~even though oloeoly oon-
         neototlin point of tilPs,ii they are dfreatod at tifiorent
         pur:sonscvabresult  la the iajw    or death of suoh par~one, there
         10 apparent1 no Quwtloa but that,the oifenoee are dletinot
         and an aoqult tal cst the murdeP of @.r luaul8 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 so-
cueed raloabed his gun and shot him again. 'Ihocourt say8
that thora warn two scrparoteand &ittnot a88aults on the se-
oond mani anb that in::noevent 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 appel-
lant, grabhad hid pistol and fired twiae jpst a8 rapl4lJ a8
he oould,";and kflld       tro brother8  in the 6a+~edffiiaultr,
Ba leadeb former aa uittal        of kl~liug ona &n the ,trlal for
lcilP ing the other. 8he court held thrtthr plea aoul& pot b8
8u8taineU by 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~le wrongful aat, a8 a eingle @hot or blow, how-
ever, the ease8 are in oonfliat ,a880 whether 8rpTato     offenees
or only CUM offense was oomitb8d.     6on1aoaae8 hare bold that
there am not reparate   offenaeo where tharo is but 8 ain@     sot,
men though two or more pmnoz~ are l888ulted 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 lving lc lseult upon or mW%er of two
different person8 under mmh aireumatanaei     are not ldsntloal 80
a8 to areatsiclenti%yof 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,
       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 ladiotment will be bpually good
    if ft alls:resthe 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 Qlfterrrnoebetween 01&evolition
    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 lindb
    roli,tionahauld aisobargb into a oolyrbgation of peo-
    p18   a fir4-ar~ loaded titi pbaa iOr ahot, ah& bbOh
    of rifty Qiftbreht person6 8hou~1Qbb 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-Jeopardy1 gu4raaty; and bvbry   proriston
    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 $bnt   ot
the Q4f@mhEt was 814310 or pGra1.
     The leading OaBb in Terar upon this point 18 Spannall v.
Litate,20% S. V+.SW, where the defendant lntent;o;~~tohot
end killed one Butler in allse;edaelf-defensb.
fired et Sutler lcilletl
                       Che'Qbfbndast'a own ar4 at the amib
tiEab. l'hbkilling of the wifb was apparently unintended. Trio
inQictn;entswere returned against the Qbfendant, one for killing
hib wife onathe other for the killing of fiutler. The defendant
wee fir& tried upon the indictment for the killing of his wife.
%ie~oaae was tried on the theory that, if the QbfenQ8nt shot
Butler in jurti?iabla self-defense, then ha was not guilty of
the r;iurder
           for the acoidsntal nhootia$ 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,gbof murdel:a8 to sutlbf, and the court of Criminal
irppbeleheld that the failure of tbb trial court to adarit
                                                                318

t:on.iirnestGulnn, page 6

evldenoe end submit to the jury the lsausr raised by the plea
of former aOqu5.ttalrequired IIreverse1 OS the judgment of
the convlotion of the znurderof butler. ;Eequote Prom the
court's opinion as followst
           "If he shot at Butler and in the same aot
    killed tis. Ypennell unintentionally,    his guilt
     o r b .t~~o enee
                   o f laoh of the honrioidesrvouldde-
     pend on vease, supra,
where the question oi the ldentll;yof 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 in-
temt to muxder the person et w&ola the shots were fired was 0on-
eldered a bar to a proseaution ror the murder of suoh third per-
son, 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'ieneeshave
Zen. &nest Cuinn, page 9

been ooannlttsdIn 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 aegerreteaofa, 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~eranttranaactlons, Independent of and not
oonneated with eaoh other, then It 18 proper for the court to
a+uatalnthe itate's aotlon to strike out the plea. tit If tha
plea presents a question of fact, then It la a question ror,the
jury, MU not for the,aourt. In other worda, tht'ruls to bo
deduoed iromth~as two o%aea le that where the ofrensea oharged
in ~differantindlotmants 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,:enunable to find any I'erusaasea in which this
apeciilo quratlon has been paaaed on by the Court of Criseinal
bpgeala. In other jurladlotiana there 5.sa 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.&ron a public hi way resulting in the death of
tW0 p8r6OR8 in th.8Other 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