Court Opinion

ID: 9654500
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:23:26.047092+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:08.457533
License: Public Domain

CHAPMAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent to the majority’s disposition of appellant’s second point of error complaining of charge error. I would conclude the jury charge failed to expressly require the jury to find appellant requested, commanded, or attempted to induce another to kill two persons and, thus, did not properly charge the jury on the law of solicitation to commit capital murder. Consequently, I would reverse appellant’s conviction and remand for a new trial.
The jury charge is the exclusive instrument upon which the jury receives its instruction on the law. Abdnor v. State, 871 S.W.2d 726, 731 (Tex.Crim.App.1994). It is therefore essential to a defendant’s right to a fair trial that the charge accurately state the law. Id. Additionally, the charge should instruct the jury on applying the law to the facts. See id. It is not the function of the *668charge merely to avoid misleading or confusing the jury; it is the function of the charge to lead the jury and prevent confusion. Id. A charge that does not apply the law to the facts fails to lead the jury in its threshold duty, ie., deciding the facts. Id. An erroneous or incomplete charge jeopardizes a defendant’s right to a jury trial because it fails to properly guide the jury in its fact-finding function. Id. To guide the jury, the charge should inform the jury on which specific acts, if found true, would constitute the offense. See Newton v. State, 648 S.W.2d 693, 694 (Tex.Crim.App.1983). Even a partial failure in the court’s charge applying the law of the offense to the facts of the ease infringes on an accused’s federal and state constitutional rights to due process of law, due course of law, and the right to a trial by jury. See Doyle v. State, 631 S.W.2d 732, 738 (Tex.Crim.App.1980).
Appellant was charged with solicitation of capital murder. Under section 15.03(a) of the penal code:
A person commits an offense if, with intent that a capital felony or murder be committed, he requests, commands, or attempts to induce another to engage in specific conduct that, under the circumstances surrounding his conduct as the actor reasonably believes them to be, would constitute the felony or make the other a party to its commission.
Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 15.03(a) (Vernon 1994) (emphasis added).
A person commits capital murder if he commits murder, and murders more than one person in the same criminal transaction. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.03(a)(7) (Vernon 1994). A person commits murder if he intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(b)(1) (Vernon 1994).
Thus, according to the relevant statutes and the facts of this ease, to prove the offense, the State was required to prove that appellant requested, commanded, or attempted to induce another to kill more than one person.1 The application paragraph of the jury charge stated:
Now, if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the 7th day of March, 1992, in Collin County, Texas, the defendant, Krissi Lynn Caldwell, acting by her own conduct or by the conduct of another for which she is criminally responsible, did then and there with the intent that capital murder, a capital felony be committed, request, command or attempt to induce Salvador Mata to engage in specific conduct, to-wit: to cause the death of Rosalyn Caldwell, that under the circumstances surrounding the conduct of Salvador Mata, as the defendant believed them to be, would constitute capital murder, then you will find the defendant guilty as charged in paragraph five of the indictment.2
(Emphasis added.)
The majority asserts that because the abstract portion of the charge defined capital murder as the murder of more than one person, and because the application paragraph required the jury to find appellant requested Mata to kill one person under circumstances, as appellant believed them to be, would constitute capital murder, the jury was required to find appellant requested Mata to kill two persons. I disagree.
In my opinion, a jury could read this charge to permit a conviction if appellant requested Mata to kill only one person but, because of circumstances that appellant believed to exist, believed Mata would kill two persons. Although the charge “incorporated” the definition of capital murder into the application paragraph, it only did so with respect to the circumstances that appellant believed to exist. It did not incorporate that definition with respect to the specific conduct appellant requested, the so-called “corpus de-licti” of the offense. Regardless of the cir*669cumstances that appellant believed to exist, the State had to prove appellant requested Mata to kill two people. I would conclude that even using the abstract portion of the charge as a glossary, the charge did not require the jury to find appellant requested Mata to kill two people.3 At best, the jury charge would confuse, rather than guide, the jury. At worst, the charge would authorize conviction under fewer facts than necessary to establish the offense.
I would further conclude the charge failed to apply the law to the facts of the case because it did not inform the jury on which specific acts, if true, would constitute the offense. The gravamen of the offense of solicitation is the “request, command, or attempt to induce” specific conduct. See Schwenk v. State, 733 S.W.2d 142, 147 (Tex.Crim.App.1981).4 The specific conduct constituting the solicited offense in this case was the killing of two persons. In my opinion, the charge should have, at a minimum, instructed the jury that to find appellant guilty, it would have to find appellant requested Mata to kill both her parents.5
Finally, I would conclude that the charge error was reversible. If error in the charge was the subject of timely objection, as it was here, then reversal is required if the error is “calculated to injure the rights of the defendant,” which means there must be “some harm” to the accused. Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex.Crim.App.1984) (op. on reh’g). I believe the jury could genuinely have been confused as to whether it was required to find that appellant requested Mata to kill both her parents or whether a finding that she requested Mata to kill only her mother would suffice. I would thus conclude the error was calculated to injure appellant’s rights. Consequently, I would reverse appellant’s conviction and remand for a new trial.

. The penal code allows a conviction if the defendant requests conduct that would make the other a party to the intended offense. See Tex Penal Code Ann. § 15.03(a) (Vernon 1994). However, appellant was not indicted under that theory. Nor was that theory contained in the charge.

. As explained by the majority, the juty was given three separate charges alleging appellant solicited three different people to kill her mother. For clarity, I will refer to Mata throughout the opinion as the solicitee.

. The majority’s reliance on Dinkins is misplaced. In Dinkins, the appellant was charged with capital murder. The application paragraph properly alleged the circumstance that elevated the murder to capital murder, i.e., the second murder, but failed to allege all of the constituent elements of the second murder. See Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330, 339 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert, denied, 516 U.S. 832, 116 S.Ct. 106, 133 L.Ed.2d 59 (1995). Here, the application paragraph wholly failed to mention the feature that elevated solicitation of murder to solicitation of capital murder. In any event, the manner in which the Dinkins application paragraph incorporated the definition of murder did require the jury to find two murders were committed. As explained above, I would conclude the manner in which this charge incorporated the definition of capital murder did not require the jury to find appellant expressly requested Mata to commit two murders.

. Indeed, the “circumstances surrounding the conduct as the defendant believed them to be” is not even an element of the offense. See Robinson v. State, 764 S.W.2d 367, 370 (Tex.App.— Dallas 1989, pet. ref'd).

. McCormick, Blackwell & Blackwell’s suggested application paragraph in Texas Practice is as follows:
Now bearing in mind the foregoing instructions, if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant, A.B., on or about the _day of_, 19_, in the County of_, and State of Texas, as alleged in the indictment [or information], did then and there with intent that a felony of the first degree [or capital felony], to wit:_[specify ] be committed, the said A.B. requested [or commanded or attempted to induce] C.D. to engage in specific conduct that, under the circumstances surrounding the conduct of C.D. as said A.B. believed them to be, would constitute said felony [or would make C.D. a party to the commission of said felony], to wit: the said A.B. requested [or commanded or attempted to induce] C.D. to_[specify as in a complaint the conduct that would constitute the felony], you will find the defendant guilty of the offense of_and so say by your verdict....
8 Michael J. McCormick et al„ Texas Practice § 108.03 (10th ed.1995) (italics original) (bold face added). The conduct that would constitute capital murder in this case is the killing of two persons. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.03(a)(7) (Vernon 1994).