Court Opinion

ID: 9768285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:54:20.499756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:39.141485
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Judge,
concurring.
In dealing with the State’s ground of error concerning inclusion of a lesser included offense in the court’s charge, the majority opinion adds a nuance to the Court’s recent pronouncements in this area espoused in Lugo v. State, 667 S.W.2d 144 (Tex.Cr.App.1984); Bell v. State, 693 S.W.2d 434 (Tex.Cr.App.1985); and Aguilar v. State, 682 S.W.2d 656 (Tex.Cr.App.1985). I write to highlight the importance and correctness of this nuance in the understanding of the doctrine of lesser included offenses in the court’s charge.
In dealing with appellant’s denial that he ever intended to kill, the majority opinion makes the following statement:
“The statement [by appellant that he did not intend to kill] cannot be plucked out of the record and examined in a vacuum. The instant case is not like [other cases] in which part of a defendant’s testimony could be reasonably believed by a jury in the context of the facts, so as to support a charge on the lesser included offense.” (emphasis added)
Maj. op at 584. Aguilar, Lugo and Bell, supra, must be understood in the context of the above quote from today’s majority opinion.
These cases hold that if there is evidence that the defendant is guilty of only a lesser included offense (the “guilty only” test), then same is raised by the evidence. It is contemplated in these rules that a jury might selectively believe proffered and introduced affirmative evidence and arrive at a verdict of guilt for a lesser included offense. Therefore, where the State has introduced sufficient evidence to support a charge on the primary offense, we look at all the evidence introduced to decide if a lesser included offense is raised. BUT, in looking at all the evidence to see if the “guilty only” test is met we must look at it in the context of the facts.
Here, appellant’s denial that he was present at the scene of the offense is, in one sense if taken alone, affirmative, proffered and introduced evidence that he had no intent to kill. Taken alone, however, it cannot fit within the context of the other facts concerning the offense. As such it cannot be proffered and introduced evidence which, when considered with all of the evidence in the case, amounts to some evidence that the defendant is guilty only of a lesser included offense.
In context of the facts of this case, the majority is quite correct in saying that the evidence does not support any inference that appellant is guilty only of aggravated assault or reckless conduct.
With these remarks I join the majority opinion.