Sadler v. State, 05-85-01424-CR
| Decision Date | 26 February 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-85-01424-CR,05-85-01424-CR |
| Citation | 728 S.W.2d 829 |
| Parties | Eddie Lee SADLER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
James A. Anderson, Dallas, for appellant.
Jeffrey B. Keck, Dallas, for appellee.
Before HOWELL, ROWE 1 and CARVER 2, JJ.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
On motion for rehearing, we withdraw our previous opinion. The following is now the opinion of the court. Eddie Lee Sadler appeals his conviction of involuntary manslaughter, for which the trial court assessed punishment at four years' confinement. The court suspended appellant's sentence and place him on probation for four years.
In his sole point of error, appellant contends that there is insufficient evidence that he acted recklessly in causing the death of his wife. We hold that the evidence was sufficient; accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
On October 20, 1984, appellant and his wife, Mary Lou Kirk, were engaged in a verbal altercation over appellant's actions earlier in the day. Kirk's ex-husband had come by the house to visit that day and appellant had let him in, much to the displeasure of Kirk. During the course of the argument, appellant told Kirk that if she did not stop arguing he was going to leave the house. Kirk replied, "You are not going any damned place," and proceeded to race from the bathroom to the bedroom, where the parties kept a pistol under the bed. Appellant ran after her to prevent her from securing the pistol. Both parties reached the bedroom at about the same time and began struggling by the bed for possession of the gun. Appellant gained possession of the gun and tried to keep it away from Kirk, but she kept struggling with him in an effort to take the pistol. During this struggle, the parties allegedly tripped over the telephone cord in the bedroom. As a result, Kirk fell on the bed and in the process she kicked appellant in the groin. This made him fall backwards, where his elbow hit the bedroom dresser, causing the pistol to discharge, killing Kirk. The police were summoned and, after an investigation, appellant was arrested and charged with murder. Trial was to the court and at the close of the evidence, the trial judge found appellant guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Appellant now contests the sufficiency of the evidence upon which he was convicted.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Houston v. State, 663 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex.Crim.App.1984). The only disputed element of the offense of which appellant was convicted was whether appellant acted recklessly.
The Texas Penal Code provides,
A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.
TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. § 6.03(c) (Vernon 1974). This appeal is determined by Thomas v. State, 699 S.W.2d 845 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (), which states as follows Every case in which someone points a loaded gun at another does not require that a charge on criminally negligent homicide be given. Nor does the allegation of accidental discharge necessarily raise the issue. The attendant circumstances from which the defendant's mental state can be inferred must be collectively examined in light of the definition of criminally negligent conduct.
....
Evidence that a defendant knows a gun is loaded, that he is familiar with guns and their potential for injury, and that he points a gun at another, indicates a person who is aware of a risk created by the conduct and disregards the risk.... That he does not anticipate a third person bumping him, causing the weapon to discharge, is a consideration that must be examined with the other evidence to determine awareness of the risk involved in pointing a loaded gun at another. However, in such a case, the awareness of the risk is not necessarily altered. It is not necessarily inattentive risk creation.... Rather, the risk is realized and actual harm results. Just because part of the conduct may be "involuntary" does not relieve a defendant of responsibility and culpability for the entire action.
....
[E]very case must be examined in light of its particular facts and circumstances to determine if the defendant was unaware of the risk his conduct created.
....
[A] defendant who is familiar with guns, who knows a gun is loaded, and who points it at another person, is consciously disregarding a risk that his conduct--pointing a loaded weapon at another--may cause harm or death and is at least reckless.
....
We ... reiterate that the emphasis should not be placed on the accidental discharge of the gun, although that is a circumstance that should be considered. Rather, all of the circumstances showing the defendant's mental state and awareness or risk of harm or death, given the circumstances, must be reviewed.
Thomas, 699 S.W.2d at 850-51 (emphasis in original).
When reviewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence in this case supports the inference that appellant was aware of the risk involved in his conduct. Appellant testified that, following an argument with the deceased, he and the deceased ran toward their bed where they kept a pistol hidden under the mattress. The deceased attempted to gain possession of the pistol to prevent appellant from leaving the house. Appellant testified that he wanted to gain possession of the pistol because he was afraid that if the deceased reached the pistol first she would shoot him. This testimony indicates that appellant was aware of the risk of injury or death involved in the ensuing struggle over the pistol. See Thomas, 699 S.W.2d at 852.
The remaining inquiry is whether appellant consciously disregarded the risk created by his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. State, No. 05-03-01802-CR (TX 4/18/2005)
...drawn by the fact finder from the attendant circumstances. Lane v. State, 763 S.W.2d 785, 787 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989); see Sadler v. State, 728 S.W.2d 829, 831 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987, no pet.)(proof of intent is almost always proved by circumstantial evidence). A jury may infer intent or know......
-
Wright v. State, No. 05-03-01040-CR (TX 11/19/2004)
...his conduct exist. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 6.03(b). Proof of intent is almost always proved by circumstantial evidence. See Sadler v. State, 728 S.W.2d 829, 831 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987, no writ). A jury may infer the requisite intent from a defendant's actions. See Taylor v. State, 859 S.W.......
-
Smith v State
...beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof of a mental state, such as intent, must almost always be proved by circumstantial evidence. Sadler v. State, 728 S.W.2d 829, 831 (Tex. App. Dallas 1987, no pet.). The jury, who is exclusively empowered to determine the issue of intent, may infer intent to ki......
-
Heredia v. State
...because firearms are "dangerous instrumentalities," and their "very purpose is to kill or injure should the necessity arise." Sadler v. State, 728 S.W.2d 829, 832 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1987, no pet.). Thus, "[i]t is mandatory that they be handled at all times with great care and the failure to ......