Rodriquez v. State
Decision Date | 09 March 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 52322,52322 |
Citation | 548 S.W.2d 26 |
Parties | Jose Gutierrez RODRIQUEZ and Luis Mani, Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
REYNOLDS, Commissioner.
Indicted and prosecuted for murder, appellants were convicted of the offense of voluntary manslaughter. The punishment of each was fixed by the jury at confinement for twelve years.
The prosecution was under V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 19.02(a)(3), * which reads:
An evidential summary is that appellants entered the El Dandy Club Bar owned by Jose Trinidad Ramos, the deceased, and ordered beer. Sixteen or seventeen persons, including Ramos, were present. Appellant Rodriquez displayed a pistol, pointing it out the door and clicking it. Appellants were told to leave. They left and, once outside, called for Ramos to come out and talk with them. When Ramos started toward the door, the barmaid and a customer caused him to remain inside. Sounds of shots were heard. A bullet penetrated the bar building, striking Ramos in the head and killing him instantly. The pistol from which the fatal shot was fired was found under the front seat of a pickup truck appellant Rodriquez drove to a nearby bar owned by Mani. In a statement given by appellant Rodriquez after his arrest and introduced by him in evidence, he reported that the shot was fired by appellant Mani. Neither appellant testified during the guilt-innocence stage of the trial.
Initial attention is given to the fourth ground of error claiming that § 19.02(a)(3) is unconstitutional for vagueness and indefiniteness. The infirmity is contended for on the theory that the section fails to show what culpable state of mind is required in the commission of the The novel contention has not heretofore been decided and, to resolve it, the enactment must be considered with other sections of the Penal Code, to which the rule of strict construction does not apply. § 1.05.
From a consideration of these sections together, it logically follows that because § 19.02(a)(3) is silent as to, and does not plainly dispense with, the culpable mental state required for the underlying felony committed or attempted, § 6.02(b) mandates that the culpable mental state shall, as specified in § 6.02(c), be one of intent, knowledge or recklessness. Upon the establishment of the underlying committed or attempted felony embracing the requisite mental element, § 19.02(a)(3) then declares that an act which is committed in the course and furtherance of, or in immediate flight from, the underlying committed or attempted felony and which is clearly dangerous to human life and causes death shall constitute murder. Thus, the culpable mental state for the act of murder is supplied by the mental state accompanying the underlying committed or attempted felony giving rise to the act. The transference of the mental element establishing criminal responsibility for the original act to the resulting act conforms to and preserves the traditional mens rea requirement of the criminal law. See, e. g., Hilliard v. State, 513 S.W.2d 28 (Tex.Cr.App.1974).
Consequently, § 19.02(a)(3) is not unconstitutional for its failure to specify the culpable mental state required for the act of murder. The fourth ground is overruled.
Consistent with this rationale, appellants' third ground, by which they say that the indictment was fatally defective because it failed to inform them of the culpable mental state with which they were charged in committing the act resulting in death to Ramos, is overruled. In view of what we have written, it is sufficient if the indictment alleges the culpable mental state attending the underlying felony committed or attempted. Here, the indictment alleged that appellants "intentionally and knowingly"...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Livingston v. State
...Caldwell. See Lamb v. State, 680 S.W.2d 11 (Tex.Cr.App.1984); Garrett v. State, 573 S.W.2d 543 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Rodriguez v. State, 548 S.W.2d 26 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). The first step of the Aguilar test is The remaining question is whether there is evidence that appellant, if guilty, is not ......
-
Drew v. State
...state for the act of murder is supplied by the mental state accompanying the underlying ... felony....'") (quoting Rodriquez v. State, 548 S.W.2d 26, 29 (Tex.Crim.App.1977)). To be guilty of felony murder, appellant argues, on the other hand, the jury must find a defendant had the required ......
-
Johnson v. State
...(unlawful possession of firearm by felon); Ex Parte Winton, 549 S.W.2d 751, 752 (Tex.Crim.App.1977) (burglary); Rodriquez v. State, 548 S.W.2d 26, 28-29 (Tex.Crim.App.1977) (felony murder); Baldwin v. State, 538 S.W.2d 109 (Tex.Crim.App.1976) (credit card abuse); Hazel v. State, 534 S.W.2d ......
-
Fraser v. State
...or recklessness Rodriquez v. State was the Court's first opinion interpreting the then newly-enacted felony-murder statute. 548 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). In Rodriquez, the Court considered whether proof of a culpable mental state was required to support a felony-murder conviction. N......
-
Table of cases
...(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1982, no pet.) 13:80 Rodriquez v. State 544 S.W.2d 382 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) 6:360 Rodriguez v. State 548 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) 6:20 Rodriquez v. State 641 S.W.2d 669 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1982) aff’d , 710 S.W.2d 60 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) 6:13......
-
Offenses against person
...there is no culpable mental state. Lomax v. State , 233 S.W.3d 302 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (overruling the portion of Rodriguez v. State , 548 S.W.2d 26 (Tex.Crim.App. 1977), stating that a culpable mental state is required for the “act of murder” in a felony-murder prosecution and that the me......