Giles v. State
| Decision Date | 03 June 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 60957,60957,3 |
| Citation | 617 S.W.2d 690 |
| Parties | Ronnie Charles GILES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
W. John Allison, Jr., on appeal only, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry M. Wade, Dist. Atty., W. T. Westmoreland, Jr., Paul Macaluso and Sue Lagarde, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before ODOM, W. C. DAVIS and McCORMICK, JJ.
This is an appeal from a conviction for murder. Punishment was assessed at twenty years.
In his second ground of error appellant contends it was error to refuse his request that a charge on the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter be submitted to the jury. The State introduced appellant's confession:
Appellant relies on the part of his confession that states he pointed the gun at deceased and it went off. It has been held that pointing a loaded gun at a person constitutes criminal negligence. See London v. State, 547 S.W.2d 27 (Tex.Cr.App.); Dockery v. State, 542 S.W.2d 644 (Tex.Cr.App.). The distinction between involuntary manslaughter under V.T.C.A., Penal Code Sec. 19.05(a)(1), (the issue in this case), and criminally negligent homicide, 19.07, (the issue in London ), lies in their respective culpable mental states of recklessness and criminal negligence. Lewis v. State, 529 S.W.2d 550 (Tex.Cr.App.).
Since pointing a gun at a person raises the issue of criminally negligent homicide, i. e., as to whether the accused was unaware of the requisite risk that he ought to have been aware of (criminal negligence, V.T.C.A., Penal Code Sec. 6.03(d)), it also raises the issue of whether he was in fact aware of the risk and consciously disregarded it (recklessness, Sec. 6.03(c), supra), i. e., it raises the issue of involuntary manslaughter. Which of the two inferences regarding the accused's awareness of the risk is correct is a matter to be drawn from the circumstances by the jury. Dillon v. State, 574 S.W.2d 92 (Tex.Cr.App.). It was therefore error to refuse to charge 1 the jury on the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter so that the jury could decide whether to infer recklessness or intent to kill. Instead, the jury was permitted only to convict of murder or to acquit. The judgment must be reversed.
In another ground of error appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to show the shooting was intentionally done. The confession shows appellant pointed the pistol at deceased. A pistol is a deadly weapon per se. Williams v. State, 567 S.W.2d 507 (Tex.Cr.App.); ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Molitor v. State
...gun at another, and (2) the gun discharged accidentally. See Shoelman v. State, 644 S.W.2d 727 (Tex.Crim.App.1983); Giles v. State, 617 S.W.2d 690, 691 (Tex.Crim.App.1981); London v. State, 547 S.W.2d 27 (Tex.Crim.App.1977); Dockery v. State, 542 S.W.2d 644 In Thomas, however, the court cha......
-
Tenner v. State
...S.W.2d 156, 159 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1986, no pet.); see also Johnson, 681 S.W.2d at 651. Tenner relies on the case of Giles v. State, 617 S.W.2d 690 (Tex.Crim.App.1981). In that case the court held that Giles was entitled to a charge of involuntary manslaughter because the evidence contai......
-
Tompkins v. State
...(Tex.Cr.App. 1982), quoting approvingly from Dillon v. State, 574 S.W.2d 92, at 94 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), and "seeing also" Giles v. State, 617 S.W.2d 690 (Tex.Cr.App. 1981). Nash v. State, 651 S.W.2d 432 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1983), involved an automobile collision and accused was convicted of inv......
-
Thomas v. State
...collectively examined in light of the definition of criminally negligent conduct. See V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Sec. 6.03(d). In this respect Giles, supra, and Schoelman, supra, are overbroad because they rely only upon the pointing of a loaded weapon as being sufficient to raise criminally negl......
-
Offenses against person
...were drinking beer), defendant was entitled to a charge on criminal negligent homicide and involuntary manslaughter. Giles v. State , 617 S.W.2d 690 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981); Lugo v. State , 667 S.W.2d 144 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984). But see later case, Thomas v. State , 699 S.W.2d 845 (Tex.Crim.App.......
-
Defenses and special evidentiary charges
...as described above, then it has found that a deadly weapon has been used since a pistol is a deadly weapon per se. Giles v. State , 617 S.W.2d 690 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981). This extends to other items categorized per se as a deadly weapon, such as a firearm, rifle or handgun. Polk v. State , 69......
-
Table of cases
...App. 2010) (not designated for publication) 3:1586 - G - Texas Criminal Jury Charges C-18 Name Citation Court Section Giles v. State 617 S.W.2d 690 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1984) 6:180 Gilliam v. State 749 S.W.2d 582 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1994, no pet.) 3:860 Gilmore v. State 666 S.W.2d 1......
-
Table of Cases
...pet. ref’d ), §3:32.1 Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008), §§16:71.2, 16:71.2.9 Giles v. State, 617 S.W.2d 690 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981), §15:131 Gilley v. State, 418 S.W.3d 114, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), §4:43, 15:31.1, 17:162 Gilmore v. State, 666 S.W.......