Garcia v. State
| Decision Date | 15 September 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 52145,52145 |
| Citation | 541 S.W.2d 428 |
| Parties | Jesus Sandoval GARCIA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Hector Yznaga, Brownsville, Court appointed, for appellant.
Selden N. Snedeker, Dist. Atty., David B. Lanford, Asst. Dist. Atty., Brownsville, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty. and David S. McAngus, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
BROWN, Commissioner.
This is an appeal from a conviction for attempted murder under V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Sec. 15.01 and Sec. 19.02. Appellant was tried before a jury which found him guilty. Punishment, enhanced under V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Sec. 12.42, was assessed by the court at life in the Texas Department of Corrections.
In his first ground of error appellant contends that it was error for the trial court to overrule his motion for an instructed verdict of not guilty because the evidence failed to establish that appellant had the 'specific intent' to kill.
The record in this case contains the testimony of the prosecuting witness, Margarito Ayala, and his brother Manuel Ayala and a nephew, Juan Ayala. The testimony of all three is substantially the same and is to the effect that they had been drinking in the Ruiz Bar in Brownsville from 6:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. on March 2, 1975. They all stated that they got in their car to leave shortly after 10:00 o'clock. As they pulled out of the parking lot appellant approached from across the street and stood in the path of the Ayala car preventing their departure. Manuel Ayala, the driver of the car, shouted to appellant to get out of the way and the two exchanged words. The Ayalas stepped out of their vehicle and appellant drew his .22 pistol and began firing, first at Manuel and then at Margarito, who was hit in the abdomen and fell to the street. Appellant ran down the street to a nearby cafe where he was apprehended a short time later.
The indictment charges that appellant 'did then and there attempt to cause the death of Margarito Ayala by shooting him with a gun, having at the time of The specific intent to commit the offense of murder.' (Emphasis added) Appellant contends that under this charge the State had the burden to present 'clear and convincing evidence' that appellant had the specific intent to kill Ayala.
Appellant's contention is without merit. This indictment charges appellant with attempted murder. Under V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Sec. 15.01, a person commits the offense of criminal attempt if, With specific intent to commit an offense, he does an act amounting to more than mere preparation that tends but fails to effect the commission of the offense intended. The offense which appellant is alleged to have had the specific intent to commit is 'murder.' Under V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Sec. 19.02, a person commits the offense of murder if he either (1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual or (2) if he intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.
Specific intent to kill, therefore, is not an essential element of proof of the offense of murder under Section 19.02(a)(2). It is sufficient to show only the intent to cause serious bodily injury. Baldwin v. State,538 S.W.2d 615 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). 1 It follows that to prove an 'attempted murder' it is sufficient if the accused has the intent to cause serious bodily injury 2 and commits an act 'amounting to more than mere preparation' that could cause the death of an individual but fails to do so.
We note that under the prior penal code in a trial for assault with intent to murder the specific intent to kill was an essential element of proof. Bell v. State, 501 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). However, the jury, as sole trier of the facts, could infer the specific intent to kill from the use of a deadly weapon. A pistol is a deadly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trevino v. State
...an intent to kill is not required. TEX. PEN.CODE ANN. § 19.02(b)(2) (Vernon 2003); Ortiz, 651 S.W.2d at 767 (citing Garcia v. State, 541 S.W.2d 428, 430 (Tex.Crim.App.1976)); see also Fazzino v. State, 531 S.W.2d 818 (Tex.Crim.App. 1976), overruled on other grounds, Dockery v. State, 542 S.......
-
Flanagan v. State
...murder. As authority for its argument, the State refers us to Baldwin v. State, 538 S.W.2d 615 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), and Garcia v. State, 541 S.W.2d 428 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). After careful reconsideration, we find the Baldwin analysis to be incorrect and will accordingly deny the State's Motion f......
-
People v. Purata
...bodily injury was enough. (Baldwin v. State, supra, 538 S.W.2d at p. 616.) Other cases followed this reasoning. (Garcia v. State (Tex.Crim.App.1976) 541 S.W.2d 428; Teal v. State (Tex.Crim.App.1976) 543 S.W.2d 371.) All this authority was overruled in Flanagan v. State (Tex.Crim.App.1984) 6......
-
Robinson v. State
...incorrect, the applicable punishment range under the new code being 2-20 years and a $10,000.00 fine.4 See however, Garcia v. State, 541 S.W.2d 428 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Hill v. State, 633 S.W.2d 520 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Ex parte Todd, 669 S.W.2d 738 (Tex.Cr.App.1984) and Ex parte Adams, 701 S.W......