Court Opinion

ID: 9635942
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:10:43.684799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:39.134368
License: Public Domain

O’CONNOR, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. By its opinion, the majority creates a new rule to avoid the law of parties.
The December 13 Robbery
I agree with the majority that, if the court had charged the jury with the law of parties, the jury would have been authorized to convict the appellant under count one for aggravated robbery of Mrs. Kopin-sky. I also agree with the majority that we cannot affirm the conviction by considering the evidence that the appellant took property from Mr. Kopinsky that was owned by Mrs. Kopinsky.
I disagree with the majority that we can affirm the appellant’s aggravated robbery conviction on the theory that the appellant committed an attempted theft. To reach that result, the majority ignores the facts in this case: the robbery of Mrs. Kopinsky was a completed theft, not an attempted theft. The only reason to treat the theft as merely “attempted” is to avoid the error in the charge. I do not believe we are authorized, as an intermediate court, to create a way around the law of parties. No other court in Texas has done so.
The majority opines that the jury could have found that appellant, while attempting to commit theft and with intent to obtain control of property belonging to Mrs. Kopinsky, intentionally or knowingly threatened or placed Mrs. Kopinsky in fear of imminent bodily injury or death, and used or exhibited a deadly weapon. We have no reason to believe that the jury, in reaching its decision on conviction under count one, considered that the theft of property from Mrs. Kopinsky was merely an attempted theft. The State, represented by experienced and knowledgeable appellate attorneys, did not propose such a reason to affirm in its brief. If the district attorney’s office did not consider this as a reason to convict, I do not believe we can assume it may have occurred to the jury in this case.
Despite the majority’s disclaimer in footnote seven, by affirming the conviction as to count one, we are holding the appellant *367responsible for his accomplice’s act without a charge on the law of parties, in violation of Jones v. State, 815 S.W.2d 667, 669 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). Without the charge on the law of parties, the evidence does not support a finding that appellant, personally, committed an aggravated robbery against Mrs. Kopinsky. I would reverse as to count one.