Court Opinion

ID: 9642016
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:45:58.72581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:42.121197
License: Public Domain

ON DENIAL OF STATE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
DOUGLAS, Judge,
dissenting.
The majority denies leave to file the State’s motion for rehearing. On original submission, the panel reversed the conviction because the court did not instruct the jury to acquit if the homicide was the result of an accident. The 1925 penal code, Article 39, provided for the defense of accident. The present code has no such provision as the defense of accident. The majority relies upon the dictum in Dockery v. State, *567542 S.W.2d 644 (Tex.Cr.App.1976) (a 3-to-2 decision), and V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 6.01(a), which provides:
“A person commits an offense only if he voluntarily engages in conduct, including an act, an omission or possession, in violation of a statute that provides that the conduct is an offense.”
A charge on accident is not required by the statute, but the majority ignores it.
The requested charge is as follows:
“You are instructed that no act done by accident is an offense against the law. Therefore, if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on the occasion in question the defendant, VICTOR RAMIREZ GARCIA, killed the deceased, Hector Jaimes, but you further believe from the evidence or have a reasonable doubt that the shooting was by the accidental discharge of a pistol in the hands of the defendant, or was the result of an accident while the deceased and the defendant were struggling or scuffling for possession of a pistol, then the defendant would not be guilty and should be acquitted. (Defendant specifically requests that should the Court include this Requested Jury Instruction, along with any of the foregoing Requested Jury Instructions, that this Requested Jury Instruction No. 13 be placed in the charge before such other charges dealing with culpable mental states so as not to appear to condition this Instruction on defendant’s not having been mentally culpable or negligent or careless.)”
He did not request a charge on the lack of voluntariness. A trial judge would have to be clairvoyant to guess that a charge on lack of voluntariness would be necessary under the requested instruction. Articles 36.14 and 36.15, V.A.C.C.P., provide that an objection to a charge and a requested charge should be specific.
Since accident is not a statutorily designated defense, it was not error for the trial judge to deny the requested instruction submitted.