Moore v. State
1998 WL 300949, 969 S.W.2d 4, 1998 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 75 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When evidence supports a lesser included offense, including voluntary manslaughter or murder, a jury instruction for that offense must be given, and 'sudden passion' for voluntary manslaughter can be inferred from the objective circumstances of the offense itself.
Facts:
- Around 2:00 a.m. on January 21, 1994, the appellant shot and killed Samuel Boyd and Patrick Clark in the parking lot of the Wheels of Joy Club after an altercation.
- An investigator found shell casings suggesting shots were fired from the left rear of the vehicle where Boyd was found dead or dying in the passenger seat and Clark was found dead next to the driver’s door.
- Both victims, Samuel Boyd (23) and Patrick Clark (15), were acutely intoxicated at the time of their deaths, with Boyd having a 0.28 grams/deciliter of ethanol and Clark a 0.15 grams/deciliter of ethanol plus muscle relaxants.
- Eyewitness Angela Wallace observed a confrontation in the parking lot between the appellant, Boyd, Clark, and Ivory Sheffield, involving an exchange of words and a push.
- Wallace saw Sheffield get a rifle from a Cadillac and toss it to the appellant, who then started shooting into Clark’s car.
- Appellant's half-brother, Tyron Parks, testified that Boyd and Clark were intoxicated and acting belligerent inside and outside the club.
- Parks intervened when Boyd and another man assaulted a girl, leading to a confrontation where Boyd pushed the appellant and then tried to grab Parks, who threw Boyd to the ground.
- Clark, driving his car, then sped into the parking lot and tried twice to run over the appellant and Parks, forcing them to jump out of the way, after which someone threw the appellant a rifle, and he shot Boyd and Clark.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellant was convicted of the capital murder of Samuel Boyd in a Texas trial court and was sentenced to death.
- The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err in denying the appellant's requests for jury instructions on the lesser included offenses of voluntary manslaughter and murder?
Opinions:
Majority - Womack, Judge
Yes, the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s requests for jury instructions on voluntary manslaughter and murder. Voluntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder under Article 37.09(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure because it involves a less culpable mental state ('sudden passion' arising from 'adequate cause'). The court held that 'sudden passion,' being a mental state, can be inferred from the acts and circumstances of the offense, thereby overruling prior precedent (Ojeda v. State) that implied a need for direct evidence of the defendant's mental state. The testimony from Tyron Parks, describing the hostile and intoxicated victims, the physical altercation, and Clark's attempts to run over the appellant and Parks with a car, constituted sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could find that such events would produce 'anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection,' thus raising the issue of voluntary manslaughter. Similarly, murder is a lesser included offense of capital murder under Article 37.09(1) because capital murder requires additional elements (here, murdering more than one person). If the jury believed the appellant acted in self-defense against Clark, then Clark's death would not constitute murder, meaning the appellant would only have 'murdered' Boyd, thereby reducing the capital murder charge to a single murder. Citing Beck v. Alabama, the court emphasized that denying a jury instruction on a lesser included offense, when supported by the evidence, forces an 'all-or-nothing' choice, which can lead to an unconstitutional conviction in a capital case. Therefore, the evidence supporting self-defense against Clark necessitated a charge on the lesser included offense of murder.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Keller, Judge
No, the trial court did not err in denying the voluntary manslaughter instruction, but did err in denying the murder instruction. While agreeing that voluntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense, Judge Keller dissented on the voluntary manslaughter point, arguing that the record lacked evidence that the appellant, 'if guilty, is guilty only of voluntary manslaughter.' She stated that voluntary manslaughter requires proof of both 'sudden passion' (the defendant's actual subjective experience of passion) and 'adequate cause' (an objective cause that would provoke an ordinary person). She contended that the majority's holding improperly 'collapses these two parts into one' by automatically inferring subjective sudden passion solely from evidence of objective adequate cause. Judge Keller maintained that, consistent with prior cases (Ojeda v. State), there must be some evidence, direct or circumstantial, demonstrating that the actor was 'in the throes of actual, subjective passion,' such as the defendant’s conduct or appearance showing an agitated state, which she found missing in this case. However, Judge Keller concurred with the majority's decision to reverse based on the denial of the murder instruction, assuming the self-defense claim for one of the victims was sufficiently raised by the evidence.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant for clarifying the application of lesser included offenses in Texas criminal law, particularly regarding homicide charges. The majority's decision liberalized the standard for establishing 'sudden passion' in voluntary manslaughter cases, allowing it to be inferred from objective circumstances rather than requiring explicit evidence of the defendant's emotional state, a departure from prior, stricter interpretations. Furthermore, the court reinforced the constitutional mandate from Beck v. Alabama in capital cases, emphasizing that juries must be allowed to consider all lesser included offenses supported by the evidence to prevent an 'all-or-nothing' verdict that could coerce a capital conviction. This ruling ensures a more robust and fair fact-finding process for defendants facing severe penalties, preventing procedural errors from limiting a jury's deliberative scope.
