Court Opinion

ID: 9671819
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:43:37.997565+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:12.226800
License: Public Domain

HUDSON, Justice,
concurring.
The cases with which the path of law is paved are fashioned by jurists who must oftentimes determine the course of jurisprudence with little or no illumination of the topography ahead. For the reasons recited in the majority opinion, we are compelled to reverse the trial court’s judgment. In my opinion, however, the law regarding the propriety of a jury instruction on the necessity of “voluntary” conduct is the result of an ill-advised detour taken many years ago.
Common law has long recognized that the unintentional killing of another person does not constitute the crime of murder.1 Whether expressed in terms of “willful,” “voluntary,” or “intentional” conduct, the law has consistently required an element of volition in cases of murder. Article 1288 of the 1925 Penal Code provided: “Homicide is excusable when the death of a human being happens by accident or misfortune ...” The 1925 Penal Code also contained the following definition of murder in Article 1256: “Who*569ever shall voluntarily kill any person within this State shall be guilty of murder.” (Emphasis added). By its use of the word “voluntarily,” I believe the legislature intended to impose upon the State the burden of proving the defendant took the victim’s life “intentionally.” 2
While the 1974 Penal Code omitted the word “voluntarily” from the definition of the offense of murder, it retained the notion that a person cannot “accidentally” commit murder. Under the current Penal Code’s definition of murder, the State is required to show an accused caused the victim’s death “intentionally or knowingly,” or with the specific intent to cause serious bodily injury, or by committing an act clearly dangerous to human life with the specific intent to commit a felony. TexPenal Code Ann. § 19.02(b) (Vernon 1994). The culpable mental state of “intentionally” or “knowingly” has been included as an element of every statutory variant of murder. Any murder committed intentionally or knowingly must, by definition, also be committed voluntarily.
Judge Clinton cogently observed that “if the burden of proving voluntary conduct rests on the State ... then absence of voluntary conduct is not a defense.” George v. State, 681 S.W.2d 48, 46 n. 6 (Tex.Crim.App.1984). He also concluded that if the absence of voluntary conduct is not a defense, the accused has no right to insist upon a jury instruction thereon. Id. I agree.
Common sense and plain meaning dictate that the issue of “voluntariness” is a part of, and subsumed by, the statutory requirement that the offense of murder be committed “intentionally” or “knowingly.”3 By presenting evidence that his conduct was not “voluntary,” the appellant did nothing more than deny an element of the offense. It is well established that “denial of a defendant’s requested instruction is not error where the requested instruction is an affirmative submission of a defensive issue which merely denies the existence of an essential element of the State’s case.” Cannon v. State, 691 S.W.2d 664, 676 (Tex.Crim.App.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1110, 106 S.Ct. 897, 88 L.Ed.2d 931 (1986). In addition, if the absence of voluntary conduct is not a true “defense,” an instruction thereon would seem to be an improper comment on the weight of the evidence. Cf. Roberson v. State, 852 S.W.2d 508, 511 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (because “misidentification” is not an affirmative defense, an instruction thereon constitutes an improper comment on the weight of the evidence).
However, the court of criminal appeals held in Williams v. State, 630 S.W.2d 640 (Tex.Crim.App.1982) that the function of the former defense of accident is now performed by the requirement of “voluntary” action contained in Section 6.01(a) of the Penal Code. Williams, 630 S.W.2d at 644. From this holding, there has evolved the concept that the absence of “voluntary” conduct constitutes a defense to prosecution which is in some fashion distinct from the State’s burden of proving intentional or knowing conduct. Deviating from the road of erudition, the court of criminal appeals recently declared that the term “voluntary,” as it is used in Section 6.01(a) does not possess the same meaning it enjoys in common usage. Alford v. State, 866 S.W.2d 619, 623-24 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). The court specifically held that the term “voluntary,” as used in Section 6.01, is not synonymous with “willful.” Id. at 622. By following this errant path, the court of criminal appeals perpetuates the flawed “defense” of voluntariness.
I cannot logically defend the law in this regard, but stare decisis obliges me to apply it in this case. Based upon controlling precedent, I reluctantly concur.

. Early in English common law there arose a distinction between "felonious homicide” and "homicide by misadventure.” 2 Frederick Pollock and Frederic Maitland, The History of English Law 484 (Cambridge, 2nd ed. 1899). "Murder is when one is slaine with a man’s will, and with malice prepensed or forethought.” 2 Edward Coke, Institutes of the Laws of England 287 b. (London: Hansard & Sons, 18th ed. 1823).

. "Murder is the voluntary or intentional killing of a person without justification or excuse.... The word 'voluntarily' carries with it the 'intention' to commit the offense charged.” Becks v. State, 158 Tex.Crim. 204, 254 S.W.2d 396, 398 (1953).

. Cf. Vargas v. State, 830 S.W.2d 656, 657-58 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet. ref'd) (because the jury was required to find the defendant committed the offense of capital murder “intentionally,” the defendant suffered no egregious harm from the trial court’s failure to submit an instruction requiring the jury to find his actions were "voluntary”).