LaPoint v. State
Decision Date | 26 November 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 227-86,227-86 |
Citation | 750 S.W.2d 180 |
Parties | Raymond Edmund LaPOINT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
John H. Hagler (on appeal only), Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty. and Anne B. Wetherholt, Royce West and Terence Hart, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Appellant was convicted of burglary of a building. Punishment was assessed by the jury at confinement in the Department of Corrections for 11 years and one day.
On appeal the Dallas Court of Appeals reversed the conviction due to a defective jury charge citing Cumbie v. State, 578 S.W.2d 732 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). LaPoint v. State (Tex.Cr.App. No. 05-84-0069 CR--1/4/85). We granted the State's Petition for Discretionary Review and remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the error in the jury charge in light of Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Cr.App.1985), decided after the original opinion of the Court of Appeals.
On remand the Court of Appeals withdrew its original opinion and turned its attention to other grounds of error. In another unpublished opinion the Court of Appeals again reversed the conviction holding that the trial court, over objection, had erred in instructing the jury that "the act of breaking and entering a building at nighttime raises a presumption that the act was done with the intent to commit theft." LaPoint v. State (Tex.App.--Dallas--05-84-00669 CR--12/30/85). We again granted the State's Petition for Discretionary Review to determine the correctness of this second holding of the Court of Appeals.
Appellant was convicted as a party to the offense of burglary committed by co-defendant Shockley. V.T.C.A., Penal Code, § 7.02. The co-defendant was convicted in a separate trial, but his conviction was reversed on appeal on the same basis as appellant's. Shockley v. State, 695 S.W.2d 754 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1985) (Pet. granted--still pending). Shockley was cited as authority for the action taken by the Court of Appeals in its second opinion.
At the guilt stage of the trial the court charged the jury in part as follows:
It is obvious that the trial court sought to charge in accordance with V.T.C.A., Penal Code, § 2.05.
Appellant objected and expressly pointed out that § 2.05 applied only to a presumption with respect to any fact established by the Penal Code itself "or another penal law" and that the "presumption" involved was not so established nor was such a charge authorized by case law. The objection was overruled.
Appellant was charged with burglary of a building under V.T.C.A., Penal Code, § 30.02(a)(1), which provides:
Intent, as an essential element of the offense of burglary, must be proved by the State beyond a reasonable doubt; it may not be left simply to speculation and surmise. Greer v. State, 437 S.W.2d 558, 559-560 (Tex.Cr.App.1969). To find that burglary has been committed there must be evidence not only showing burglarious entry but also that the party at the time he entered had specific intent to commit theft or a felony as alleged in the burglary indictment. Greer, supra, at p. 560. Nothing in our burglary statutes or other statutes indicates that a presumption from the evidence arises with regard to proof of intent as an essential element of burglary. As a question of fact for the jury, however, intent may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. Mauldin v. State, 628 S.W.2d 793, 795 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Ortega v. State, 626 S.W.2d 746, 749 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Moss v. State, 574 S.W.2d 542 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Williams v. State, 537 S.W.2d 936 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Hawkins v. State, 467 S.W.2d 465 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). See also Wilson v. State, 658 S.W.2d 615 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); Goswick v. State, 656 S.W.2d 68 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); Coberly v. State, 644 S.W.2d 734 (Tex.Cr.App.1983).
There, of course, is no question that a prosecutor may argue as a deduction from the evidence that intent to commit theft can be inferred from entry at nighttime without consent.
A number of cases have held that an entry made without consent in the nighttime is "presumed" to have been made with intent to commit theft. See Mauldin v. State, 628 S.W.2d 793, 795 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Solis v. State, 589 S.W.2d 444, 446 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Moss v. State, 574 S.W.2d 542, 544 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Clark v. State, 543 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex.Cr.App.1970), and cases there cited. See also Williams v. State, 506 S.W.2d 868 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Clayton v. State, 493 S.W.2d 526 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Roberts v. State, 375 S.W.2d 303 (Tex.Cr.App.1964); Alexander v. State, 20 S.W. 756 (Tex.Cr.App.1892). Although there may be some question as to whether this was a presumption or simply a permissible inference most of the cases applying the principle have done so in review of questions of sufficiency of the evidence. At the trial level the principle may come into play upon presentation of a motion for an instructed verdict or a hearing on a motion for new trial. Thus it has been a trial vehicle as well as an appellate vehicle to review the sufficiency of evidence. Cf. Aguilar v. State, 682 S.W.2d 556, 558 (Tex.Cr.App.1985). 1
The evidentiary "presumption" or permissive inference was never intended to relieve the prosecution of proving every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt or to be used in a jury charge for that purpose. Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307, 105 S.Ct. 1965, 1970, 85 L.Ed.2d 344 (1985).
Only recently in Browning v. State, 720 S.W.2d 504 (Tex.Cr.App. 1986), this Court held that instructing a jury on such "presumption" or inference was error and wrote:
"... (Footnote omitted.) Also see Mercado v. State, 718 S.W.2d 291 (Tex.Cr.App.1986).
There can be no question that the trial judge erred in overruling appellant's objection and charging on the "presumption" or inference to which V.T.C.A., Penal Code, § 2.05, was not applicable by its very terms and which was not authorized by case law. The charge was also an improper comment on the weight of the evidence. We thus agree with the Court of Appeals as to the error in the charge. We must now determine whether the appellant has suffered "some harm" as a result of the objected to error in the charge. Almanza v. State, supra. 2 The Court of Appeals did not expressly apply Almanza but cited Shockley as the basis for reversal. Shockley did discuss and apply Almanza.
Stuart Harris, owner of the Orchard Hill Pharmacy in Garland, testified that normal store hours were from 7 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. On October 27, 1982, he secured the store at the normal closing time and checked the locks. After midnight on October 28, 1982, he was summoned to the building which had...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rodriguez v. State
...with the defendant to persuade the reviewing court that he suffered some actual harm. Abdnor, 871 S.W.2d at 732; LaPoint v. State, 750 S.W.2d 180, 191 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (op. on The engaging statute requires that at least three individuals be involved. One individual cannot commit the offe......
-
Belyeu v. State, 69654
...and any other relevant information revealed in the record. Almanza, supra, at 171." Cuevas, supra, at 351. In LaPoint v. State, 750 S.W.2d 180, 190 (Tex.Cr.App.1986) (Opinion On State's Motion For Rehearing), we had the opportunity to further discuss and apply the Almanza "some" harm analys......
-
Jackson v. State
...with the defendant to persuade the reviewing court that he suffered some actual harm. Abdnor, 871 S.W.2d at 732; LaPoint v. State, 750 S.W.2d 180, 191 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (op. on reh'g). However, because we conclude that there was no error in this case, we do not need to address harm. An......
-
Williams v. State
...to consider whether State emphasized the error in admitting extraneous offense victim-impact evidence); LaPoint v. State, 750 S.W.2d 180, 192 (Tex.Crim.App.1988)(appropriate to consider whether prosecutor exploited erroneous instruction in closing argument); Hawkins v. State, 135 S.W.3d 72,......
-
Table of cases
...v. State 957 S.W.2d 584 (Tex. App—Dallas 1997, pet. ref’d) 1:80 - L - C-27 Table of Cases Name Citation Court Section LaPoint v. State 750 S.W.2d 180 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) 8:540 Lawhorn v. State 898 S.W.2d 886 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) 9:680 Lawson v. State 999 S.W.2d 912 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1......
-
Offenses against property
...of intent to commit theft is a device to test the sufficiency of evidence in both the trial and appellate courts. LaPoint v. State , 750 S.W.2d 180 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986). It is improper for the trial court to instruct the jury that such an inference (or presumption) may be indulged by the ju......