Court Opinion

ID: 9665408
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:48:08.87678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:15.616328
License: Public Domain

WHITE, Judge,
dissenting.
Today, a majority of this Court holds that the evidence in the instant case was subject to different interpretations, and could therefore be seen to have raised the issue that appellant was criminally negligent in his actions which resulted in the victim’s death. The majority concludes that appellant should have received his requested instruction on criminally negligent homicide, reversing the decision of the Court of Appeals.1 I believe the Court of Appeals reached the correct decision in the instant case, and dissent to the majority’s reversal of that opinion.
*393In support of its belief that it found no evidence from any source to indicate that if he was guilty, appellant was guilty only of criminally negligent homicide, the Court of Appeals explained:
“The essence of criminal negligence is the failure of the actor to perceive the risk created by his conduct. Mendieta v. State, 706 S.W.2d 651, 652 (Tex.Cr.App.1986). Before a charge on this particular crime is required, the appellate record must contain evidence that shows the accused was unaware of the risk his conduct was creating. Mendieta, 706 S.W.2d at 653; Miranda v. State, 739 S.W.2d 473, 475 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.). The credibility of the evidence, the source of the evidence, and whether it conflicts with other evidence is never considered. Thomas, 699 S.W.2d at 849; Miranda, 739 S.W.2d at 475.
“The evidence shows that Darrell’s death resulted from a skull fracture by having his head squeezed more than once. This caused death independent of the subdural hemorrhage. We find no evidence from any source indicating that if appellant was guilty of causing Darrell’s death by squeezing his head, he was only guilty of criminally negligent homicide. Thus the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense.”2
This holding was based upon the requirements for the submission of an instruction on a lesser included offense set down in Royster v. State. The lesser included offense must be included within the proof necessary to establish the offense charged, and there must be some evidence in the record to indicate that if the defendant is guilty, he is guilty only of the lesser offense.3 The majority’s decision to reverse the Court of Appeals because the evidence in this case could be interpreted to imply that appellant possessed the lesser mental state subverts the second requirement of Royster.
The majority relies not upon the evidence in the record before the trial court, but upon its own view of an inferential implication of that evidence. This is not a proper application of Royster. A possible inference of a lesser included theory of guilt does not amount to evidence sufficient to show that if a defendant is guilty, he is guilty only of the lesser included offense.4 Under the record in the instant case, appellant was not entitled to his requested instruction.
A defendant must be able to point to evidence in a record that shows, exclusively, that he could be guilty only of the lesser included offense. The idea that one can extrapolate two separate and distinct inferences from an item of evidence presupposes that item of evidence does not possess the nature of proof called for in the Roy-ster test: an exclusive showing of guilt only of the lesser included offense.
Within the context of traditional Royster analysis, I believe the Court of Appeals properly relied upon Mendieta v. State in arriving at the correct decision. The record of the instant case, as in Mendieta, reveals evidence which “entitled appellant to a charge on involuntary manslaughter, but did not raise criminally negligent homicide.” 5
This Court relied upon Mendieta in resolving a dispute similar to the instant case in Tompkins v. State,
Y.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 6.03(d), defines “Criminal Negligence” as follows: “A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will *394occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor’s standpoint.” (Our emphasis.)
Recently, in Mendieta v. State, 706 S.W.2d 651, 653 (Tex.Cr.App.1986), a majority of this Court ruled that “It is incumbent that the record contain evidence showing an unawareness of the risk before a charge on criminally negligent homicide is required.”6
The evidence that was presented in the instant case does not show that appellant was unaware of the risk created by his conduct, including squeezing the victim’s head with great pressure. Appellant never states anywhere in his confession in any form that he was not aware of the risk that his actions were clearly dangerous to the life of the infant victim. Merely because it might be possible to infer from the evidence that appellant was not aware of the risk (such an inference would seem to require either a prodigious leap of faith or an abandonment of common sense), this does not change the fact that he was aware of his conduct and the risk that it was creating. There is no evidence in the record before us to show that if appellant was guilty, he was guilty only of not being aware of the risk created by his repeated acts of abuse and violence towards the victim. The trial court did not err in refusing to give the jury an instruction on criminally negligent homicide.7 This Court should overrule appellant’s petition for discretionary review, and affirm the judgment of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals. I respectfully dissent to its decision to do otherwise.
McCORMICK, P.J., and CAMPBELL and BENAVIDES, JJ., join this dissent.

. Saunders v. State, 780 S.W.2d 471 (Tex.App.— Corpus Christi 1989).

. Saunders v. State, 780 S.W.2d, at 475.

. Royster v. State, 622 S.W.2d 442 (Tex.Cr.App.1981) (opinion on rehearing).

. Compare with, Hunter v. State, 647 S.W.2d 657, at 658 (Tex.Cr.App.1983) (wherein, the defendant explicitly testified at trial that he was unaware of the risk that his gun would go off and shoot the victim); and Thomas v. State, 699 S.W.2d 845, at 847 (Tex.Cr.App.1985) (wherein, the defendant testified to support his argument that he was entitled to an instruction on criminally negligent homicide.).

. Mendieta v. State, 706 S.W.2d, at 652-653.

. Tompkins v. State, 774 S.W.2d 195, at 211 (Tex.Cr.App.1987).

. Mendieta v. State, supra; Tompkins v. State, supra; and Fearance v. State, 771 S.W.2d 486, at 511 (Tex.Cr.App.1988).