Court Opinion

ID: 9857803
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:01:53.137104+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:46:15.930377
License: Public Domain

TEAGUE, Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
I agree with the majority’s holding that appellant’s complaints about the trial court’s orders revoking his two probations are without merit. However, I must dissent to the majority’s holding that the State’s evidence that was presented in appellant’s aggravated robbery trial is sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that appellant “used [or] exhibited a deadly weapon, namely, a firearm,” (my *337emphasis), in the commission of that offense.
The majority’s sole authority for rejecting appellant’s contention that the evidence is insufficient to establish that the object he used in the commission of the aggravated robbery offense was “a firearm” is a secondary source, Ballantine’s Law Dictionary (3rd Ed.1969). However, notwithstanding what Ballantine’s Law Dictionary might state, our Legislature has seen fit to define the term “firearm.” See V.T. C.A., Penal Code, Sections 1.07(11)(A) and 46.01(3).
Although “a firearm” is per se “a deadly weapon,” see V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 1.07(11)(A), an object such as a gun or a revolver, though such may be characterized as “a deadly weapon,” is not necessarily “a firearm.” See V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 46.01(3). To hold that it is flies in the face of what the Legislature intended when it adopted several provisions of the New Penal Code. In many instances, when the Legislature enacted the New Penal Code, it saw fit, for punishment purposes, to take the focus of attention away from what the victim thought or believed when he or she was assaulted, and, instead, placed the focus of attention upon the type of weapon or instrument that was used in the commission of certain offenses, such as the offense of aggravated robbery.
In this instance, no weapon was ever recovered, nor did Chow, the complaining witness, ever identify any weapon as being like the one that appellant had used or exhibited when he robbed Chow of his money. Furthermore, there is no testimony or evidence that the “gun” or “revolver,” that Chow said appellant had used, was “a firearm,” as alleged in the indictment, and as statutorily defined. Was this sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt what the State alleged, namely, that appellant used or exhibited “a firearm?” In light of the fact that the term “firearm” has been statutorily defined, and thus has a peculiar meaning, I don’t think so.
Because the word “firearm” is statutorily defined, see V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 46.01, also see Section 1.07(11)(A), supra, such word has a much more limited, precise, and specific meaning than does the word “gun,” “revolver,” or the like, which have not been statutorily defined, might have. See O’Briant v. State, 556 S.W.2d 333 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Mosley v. State, 545 S.W.2d 144 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). By alleging that appellant used or exhibited “a firearm,” it then became incumbent upon the State to prove that the weapon that appellant brandished was in fact “a firearm.” In light of the absence of any evidence that the object that appellant used or exhibited was “a firearm,” as statutorily defined, the State failed in its proof.
When the Legislature defined the word “firearm,” see supra, it clearly meant that all “guns,” “pistols,” “revolvers,” or the like, were not to be “firearms,” but, of course, could be “deadly weapons.” Otherwise, why was it so meticulous in defining the word “firearm,” which has a very limited, precise, and specific meaning? Compare 18 U.S.C.A. Section 921(a)(3)(16); Mars Equipment Corporation v. United States, 437 F.Supp. 97, 99-100 (D.C.N.D.Ill.1977).
I pause to point out that by the provisions of Y.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 29.-03, the aggravated robbery statute, the State did not have to allege that appellant committed the offense of aggravated robbery-by using or exhibiting “a firearm.” It would have been sufficient for the State to have alleged in the indictment, and proved, that appellant had committed the offense with a deadly weapon, namely, a gun or a revolver. Nevertheless, when the State chose to shoulder a heavier burden than the law required of it, by alleging that appellant exhibited or used “a firearm,” when he committed the offense, it then became bound to prove what it had alleged. Compare Nelson v. State, 573 S.W.2d 9 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). By alleging more than the law required, the State became bound by its allegation that appellant had used “a firearm,” and was thus bound to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what it had alleged. Weaver v. State, 551 S.W.2d 419, *338420 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Moore v. State, 532 S.W.2d 333 (Tex.Cr.App.1976).
The prosecution could also have had Chow identify what purportedly was an exact replica of the weapon that appellant had used, and, if this object satisfied the statutory definitional requirements of “a firearm,” then the State would have satisfied its burden of proof. See Simmons v. State, 622 S.W.2d 111 (Tex.Cr.App.1981).
However, the prosecution did none of the above, and because the word “firearm” is statutorily defined, the provisions of Art. 5429b-2, V.A.C.S., are inapplicable. See and compare Mosley v. State, supra, with Corte v. State, 630 S.W.2d 690 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st] 1982) (Appellant’s P.D.R. Refused.)
For the above reasons, the State did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant used or exhibited “a firearm.” I pause to point out that this finding would not preclude the State from retrying appellant for committing the offense of robbery of Chow. Rucker v. State, 599 S.W.2d 581 (Tex.Cr.App.1980).
Because the majority erroneously holds that the evidence is sufficient to sustain that part of the verdict of the jury, that appellant used or exhibited “a firearm,” I must respectfully dissent.