Court Opinion

ID: 9777725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:21:53.485826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:00.335516
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, Judge,
dissenting.
In Royster v. State, 622 S.W.2d, 442 (Tex.Cr.App.1981) this Court did not enunciate a two part test to determine whether a charge on a lesser included offense is required. A plurality of four judges followed a panel majority opinion in Eldred v. State, 578 S.W.2d 721 (Tex.Cr.App.1979), which *559was not tested for validity on rehearing by the Court En Bane. In between there was Watson v. State, 605 S.W.2d 877 (Tex.Cr.App.1980), and like Royster v. State, supra, it too mustered just a plurality for the “guilty only” test of Daywood-McBrayer. As of September 28, 1981 five judges had rejected the socalled “two part test” in favor of others. See Royster v. State, supra, at 447; see also Watson v. State, supra, at 886-887. I still do and therefore dissent.
In Watson I demonstrated to the satisfaction of Judge Dally that “[t]he rule stated by the majority is an incorrect rule which has been erroneously applied numerous times since its apparent genesis in Daywood v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 266, 248 S.W.2d 479 (1952) as dictum,” id., at 886.1 Despite reiterating the Daywood-McBrayer “guilty only” test from time to time, this Court may have abandoned it recently in Lugo v. State, 667 S.W.2d 144 (Tex.Cr.App.1984)-since the opinion does not even mention nor does it apply the “two part test” in finding error in refusal to instruct on a lesser included offense raised by a consideration of all the evidence before the jury. However, if this Court still has not settled on a fair and workable standard for determining when a trial court is required to include in its charge to a jury proper instructions authorizing jurors to consider a lesser included offense, now is the time to do so, and Lugo provides it in the instant cause.
In Lugo, supra, the Court found, “The sole issue at trial concerned appellant’s intent.” Id., at 149. Is not that the ultimate issue in the case at bar?
The offense alleged is attempted burglary — that is, that appellant with specific intent to commit the offense of burglary did the act described, according to the State, with intent to commit theft. V.T.C.A. Penal Code, § 15.01(a) and § 30.02(a)(1). The offense of attempted criminal trespass requires specific intent to commit the offense of criminal trespass coupled with an act that tends to but fails to effect a criminal trespass — that is, one intends to enter a building of another without effective consent, having notice that entry is forbidden, and goes beyond preparing to do so. Id., § 15.01(a) and § 30.05(a).
The testimony of Officer Robles is that he observed two persons standing in the recessed doorway to the 105 Lounge; they were facing the door, their backs to the street; he could not tell what they were doing at that time. Only later was it discovered that the top part of a wooden door had been pushed back. Thus is shown an attempted entry, and the only question is with what intent was that attempt made— to commit burglary or criminal trespass. Since the evidence adduced at trial raises an issue that a lesser included offense may have been committed, to paraphrase Lugo, the trial court should have included a proper instruction on the lesser included offense of criminal trespass. Lugo, supra, at 147.

. All emphasis is supplied throughout by the writer of this opinion unless otherwise indicated.