Art Patrick v. State, 04-16-00317-CR

Appellant Art Patrick was charged with assault causing bodily injury to a family/household member; the information alleged he acted intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly by striking and pulling the juvenile complainant.
Appellant moved to quash the amended information, arguing Article 21.15 required the State to specify acts supporting the recklessness allegation; the trial court denied the motion.
At trial Appellant claimed self-defense; the court excluded proffered evidence of a prior (Sept. 2015) incident involving the complainant, and Appellant made a bill of exceptions.
The jury found Appellant guilty; the court placed him on community supervision and ordered "medical restitution, if any" to be determined by the probation department.
On appeal Appellant raised three points: (1) charging instrument insufficient re: recklessness, (2) erroneous exclusion of prior-incident evidence relevant to self-defense, and (3) improper delegation / lack of restitution hearing. The State concedes remand is required for restitution but defends the other rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
sufficiency of information re: recklessness	Article 21.15 required specifying the acts relied on to constitute recklessness; absence warrants quash	State alleged intentional, knowing, and reckless mental states conjunctively, so Article 21.15's specificity requirement for reckless-only allegations is inapplicable	Court rejects quash; charging instrument sufficient because intentional/knowing also alleged
exclusion of prior-incident evidence (self-defense)	Exclusion of prior violent incident of the victim deprived Appellant of admissible communicated-character evidence needed to show reasonableness of his fear	Evidence was properly excluded (trial court’s basis ambiguous), but even if error occurred it was harmless because record shows Appellant acted from anger and jury heard other self-defense evidence	Any error in exclusion was harmless; conviction stands on the record
restitution order / delegation to probation	Appellant objected to order leaving restitution amount/payee to probation without a hearing	State concedes trial court abused discretion by delegating determination and agrees remand for restitution hearing is appropriate	Remand for a restitution hearing; trial court may not delegate imposition of conditions of community supervision

Smith v. State, 309 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App.) (charging-instrument sufficiency reviewed de novo)
Castorena v. State, 486 S.W.3d 630 (Tex. App.—San Antonio) (indictment alleging recklessness plus intentional/knowing is sufficient without specifying acts forming recklessness)
Torres v. State, 71 S.W.3d 758 (Tex. Crim. App.) (limits and purposes for admitting prior violent acts to show reasonableness of defendant’s fear)
Ex parte Miller, 330 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App.) (discussing communicated-character evidence and defendant’s state of mind)
Burt v. State, 445 S.W.3d 752 (Tex. Crim. App.) (remand for restitution hearing when amount or recipients not determined at sentencing)