Court Opinion

ID: 9653375
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:45:30.777982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:58.488525
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, Judge,
dissenting.
Contrary to the notion of the majority that paragraphs 4 and 5 of the charge apply “the theory of criminal responsibility set forth in V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Section 7.02(b)” — the conspiracy theory — it is clear that the trial court also endeavored to intertwine the theory of criminal responsibility for the conduct of another prescribed in id., Section 7.02(a)(2). Thus, midway in each paragraph there is posited:
“. . . and that the defendant, Sammie Norman English, pursuant to said conspiracy, if any, with the intent to promote. assist or aid the said Kyle McGill and/or [sic] Aaron Earl Powell in the commission of said robbery then and there at the time of the shooting, if any, was acting with and aiding the said Kyle McGill and/or [sic] Aaron Earl Powell in the execution or attempted execution of said robbery of David Samsel, if any, and that the shooting of David Samsel . was done in furtherance of . the robbery or attempted robbery.”
The underscored language can be drawn only from Section 7.02(a)(2):
“(2) acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense . . ”
The hybrid thus produced by that mix of two otherwise distinct ■ legal theories of criminal responsibility lowers the level required by Section 7.02(a)(2) — that is, that for appellant to be responsible for the act of McGill in intentionally shooting to kill Sam-sel appellant, acting with intent to promote or assist commission of the offense of murder, must have aided or attempted to aid McGill to commit the offense of murder. Under the charge appellant could be held responsible for the act of McGill in intentionally shooting to kill Samsel if appellant, with intent to promote, assist or aid McGill or Powell in the commission of robbery, acted with and aided either in the execution or attempted execution of the robbery. Such a diminution of criminal responsibility is not authorized by law, and the trial court erred in permitting the jury to consider it.
Accordingly, I dissent.
ROBERTS, J., joins.