Williams v. State, 2-85-082-CR
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
| Citation | 704 S.W.2d 156 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-85-082-CR,2-85-082-CR |
| Parties | Jimmy Ray WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, State. |
| Decision Date | 26 February 1986 |
Page 156
v.
The STATE of Texas, State.
Fort Worth.
Page 157
Charles Warren Van Cleve, Arlington, for appellant.
Tim Curry, Criminal Dist. Atty., and Mary Thornton Taylor, Asst., Fort Worth, for State.
Before FENDER, C.J., and ASHWORTH and HILL, JJ.
HILL, Justice.
Jimmy Ray Williams appeals his conviction by a jury of the offense of injury to a child causing serious bodily injury. The jury found the enhancement paragraph to be true and assessed his punishment at 99 years in the Texas Department of Corrections. Williams contends that the trial court erred by not including an instruction allowing the jury to find that he committed the offense "recklessly" and that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to refer in closing argument to Williams' motel room as a "torture chamber" with its own "little dungeon".
We affirm, because we find that the evidence does not support an instruction allowing
Page 158
the jury to find that Williams committed the offense "recklessly", and because we find that the prosecutor's argument was a reasonable deduction from the evidence.In ground of error number one, Williams urges that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury so as to allow them to find that he committed the offense "recklessly".
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. sec. 22.04 (Vernon Supp.1986) provides that:
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, by act or omission, engages in conduct that causes to a child who is 14 years of age or younger or to an individual who is 65 years of age or older:
(1) serious bodily injury;
(2) serious physical or mental deficiency or impairment;
(3) disfigurement or deformity; or
(4) bodily injury.
(b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section is a felony of the first degree when the conduct is committed intentionally or knowingly. When the conduct is engaged in recklessly it shall be a felony of the third degree.
(c) An offense under Subsection (a)(4) of this section is a felony of the third degree when the conduct is committed intentionally or knowingly. When the conduct is engaged in recklessly it shall be a Class A misdemeanor....
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. sec. 6.03 (Vernon 1974) provides that:
(a) A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.
(b) A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.
(c) 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....
The interpretation of the distinction between the culpable mental...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tenner v. State, 2-86-285-CR
...charge involving reckless conduct where the conduct engaged in by the defendant is directly harmful to the victim. See Williams v. State, 704 S.W.2d 156, 159 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1986, no pet.); see also Johnson, 681 S.W.2d at Tenner relies on the case of Giles v. State, 617 S.W.2d 690 (Te......
-
Ex parte Pipkin, 07-96-0250-CR
...and the consequences for the defendant, but also the expectations of the litigants as they enter the first arena." Showery v. State, 704 S.W.2d at 156. Upon considering the context, consequences, and expectations here we find additional reason to reject appellant's argument. As previously a......
-
Benefield v. State, 02-14-00099-CR
...v. State in support of this sufficiency challenge to the reckless element of his conviction, it is inapplicable to the present facts. See 704 S.W.2d 156, 158-59 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1986, no pet.). In Williams, the defendant inflicted numerous injuries on a child over a period of time by h......
-
Villarreal v. State, NUMBER 13-10-00396-CR
...running down a child, of shooting a skier, of smashing into a parked car—and that he consciously disregarded it.Williams v. State, 704 S.W.2d 156, 158 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1986, no pet.) (citation omitted). The evidence in this case established appellant is the biological mother of I.V., t......