Ramos v. State
| Decision Date | 06 October 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 331-92,331-92 |
| Citation | 865 S.W.2d 463 |
| Parties | Paul Sandoval RAMOS, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Jack W. Beech, Fort Worth, for appellant.
Tim Curry, Dist. Atty., and C. Chris Marshall and Charles M. Mallin, Asst. Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, Robert Huttash, State's Atty. and Matthew W. Paul, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON STATE'S PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
A jury convicted appellant of aggravated sexual assault and assessed punishment at confinement for fifty years. See V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 22.021. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of sexual assault. Ramos v. State, 821 S.W.2d 418 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1991); see V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 22.011. We granted petitions for discretionary review filed by the Tarrant County District Attorney and the State Prosecuting Attorney to determine whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that a single statement from appellant's testimony, examined in isolation, raised the issue of the lesser included offense. We will reverse.
The victim testified appellant grabbed her and dragged her to several locations where he sexually assaulted her under threats of stabbing and death. She did not resist. During direct examination by his lawyer, appellant denied threatening the victim and claimed she consented to the sexual relations he had with her. When asked by his lawyer if the victim resisted his sexual advances, appellant testified, "[M]ost like any other girl, you know, kind of act like they don't want it, but, you know, then they do, so--." The Court of Appeals held this testimony, together with appellant's denial of threatening the victim, raised the lesser included offense of sexual assault. Ramos, 821 S.W.2d at 420; see Section 22.011. The Court of Appeals reasoned appellant's testimony that the victim resisted his sexual advances "like most other girls" could be construed by a jury to mean the victim resisted his sexual advances thereby constituting an admission the victim did not consent instead of a denial appellant committed the offense. See id.; see also Godsey v. State, 719 S.W.2d 578, 584 (Tex.Cr.App.1986).
In determining whether the evidence raises a lesser included offense, a two-step analysis is required. First, the lesser offense must be included within the proof necessary to establish the offense charged; second, there must be some evidence from any source that raises a fact issue on whether the defendant is guilty of only the lesser offense. Royster v. State, 622 S.W.2d 442, 446 (opinion on reh'g) (Tex.Cr.App.1981). The first condition of the two-step analysis was clearly met. To prove aggravated sexual assault, the State must prove sexual assault. See V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Sections 22.011 and 22.021. However, the Court of Appeals' holding that the second condition was met is contrary to our holding in Godsey, 719 S.W.2d at 584. In Godsey we held that a statement made by a defendant "cannot be plucked out of the record and examined in a vacuum" in a lesser included offense analysis. Id.
Here, the victim testified appellant sexually assaulted her under threats of severe violence. She also testified she did not resist appellant's sexual advances because she was afraid, and her only hope in escaping further harm was to do what appellant demanded. The victim's testimony raised no fact issues on the lesser included offense of sexual assault.
Appellant's statement on direct that the victim resisted "like most other girls" must be viewed in light of appellant's factual theory of the case. See Godsey, 719 S.W.2d at 584. Examining the entire record, it is clear appellant's factual theory was the victim willingly had sex with him under no threats of stabbing or death. During cross-examination, the prosecutor asked appellant the same question appellant's lawyer asked on direct concerning whether the victim resisted appellant's sexual advances. Appellant answered, "I wouldn't say resisting." Appellant later testified the victim "acted like she wanted it." Viewed in the context of the entire record, appellant's statement that the victim resisted "like most girls" failed to raise a fact issue on whether she resisted. See Godsey, 719 S.W.2d at 584. Therefore, appellant's testimony raised no fact issues on the lesser included offense of sexual assault, and we hold he was not entitled to an instruction on that issue. We sustain the District Attorney's and the State Prosecuting Attorney's grounds for review.
We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the cause there to consider appellant's remaining points of error.
CLINTON, J., would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals under Arcila v. State, 834 S.W.2d 357 (Tex.Cr.App.1993), which is equally applicable to the State.
Believing the Court of Appeals properly reviewed the evidence and applied the appropriate law, I...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gonzalez v. State
...Crim. App. 2018).In addition, we must view the evidence in light of the defendant's factual theory of the case. Ramos v. State , 865 S.W.2d 463, 465 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) ; see Godsey v. State , 719 S.W.2d 578, 584 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (criticizing the intermediate appellate court for "[......
-
Barcenes v. State
...Isolated facts taken out of context from the record will not justify a lesser included offense instruction. See Ramos v. State, 865 S.W.2d 463, 465 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). We begin with the statutory definitions. The offense of involuntary manslaughter occurs when a person recklessly causes th......
-
Moore v. State
...157 Tex.Cr. 266, 267-69, 248 S.W.2d 479, 481 (1952). The evidence must be evaluated in the context of the entire record. Ramos v. State, 865 S.W.2d 463 (Tex.Cr.App.1993). There must be some evidence from which a rational jury could acquit the defendant of the greater offense while convictin......
-
Sanders v. State
...the entire record instead of plucking certain evidence from the record and examining it in a vacuum.” Id. (citing Ramos v. State, 865 S.W.2d 463, 465 (Tex.Crim.App.1993)). Anything more than a scintilla of evidence is sufficient to entitle a defendant to a lesser charge. Id. (citing Ferrel ......
-
Trial Issues
...cannot be plucked from the record and examined in a vacuum, but must be examined in light of the record as a whole. Ramos v. State, 865 S.W.2d 463 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Where the state requests a charge on a lesser-included offense, it is not bound by the second prong of the Rousseau-Roys......
-
Child Sexual Abuse
...of aggravated sexual assault. Chavis v. State, 807 S.W.2d 375 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, pet. ref ’ d ); Ramos v. State, 865 S.W.2d 463 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Whether indecency with a child is a lesser included offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child is to be determined o......
-
Trial issues
...cannot be plucked from the record and examined in a vacuum, but must be examined in light of the record as a whole. Ramos v. State, 865 S.W.2d 463 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). TRIAL ISSUES §15:121 Texas Criminal Lawyer’s Handbook 15-126 Where the state requests a charge on a lesser-included offe......
-
Trial Issues
...cannot be plucked from the record and examined in a vacuum, but must be examined in light of the record as a whole. Ramos v. State, 865 S.W.2d 463 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Where the state requests a charge on a lesser-included offense, it is not bound by the second prong of the Rousseau-Roys......