Castillo, Ex Parte Thomas Edward
469 S.W.3d 165
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2015Background
- In August 2010 Castillo entered Rogelio Nava’s habitation, stabbed Nava (who died) and Carol Sanchez (who survived).
- Two indictments returned same day: (1) capital murder (death of Nava while committing/attempting burglary of Nava’s habitation) and (2) burglary and aggravated assault (assaulting Sanchez and burglary of Nava’s habitation).
- Castillo was tried first for capital murder and acquitted. He was later prosecuted on the burglary and aggravated-assault indictment.
- Castillo sought dismissal on double-jeopardy grounds; the trial court denied, the court of appeals reversed and ordered dismissal of the second indictment.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed whether the burglary and aggravated-assault prosecutions were barred by double jeopardy after the capital-murder acquittal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether burglary prosecution is barred after acquittal of capital murder | State: offenses differ under same-elements test; burglary not subsumed | Castillo: burglary is a lesser-included of capital murder as pled | Burglary is legally and factually the same as the burglary predicate in capital murder; prosecution barred |
| Whether aggravated-assault prosecution (victim Sanchez) is barred after acquittal of capital murder (victim Nava) | State: aggravated assault is not same; different victim = different unit of prosecution | Castillo: aggravated assault is subsumed within capital murder proof | Aggravated assault is legally the same in the abstract but not factually the same; different victim = different unit; prosecution not barred |
| Proper double-jeopardy analysis: pleadings-only vs. record evidence | State: court of appeals erroneously used cognate-evidence/record analysis | Castillo: factual-sameness requires record review to determine units | Court: legal-sameness uses indictments/statutes; factual-sameness requires record review; rejected relief based solely on factual-sameness but affirmed burglary bar on both grounds |
| Whether an offense is subsumed only if State was required (not merely could have) used it to prove the greater | State: court of appeals erred by saying "could have" suffices | Castillo: contended lesser offense was within proof of greater | Court: Overruled reliance on mere possibility; sustained State’s contention as to aggravated assault outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (double jeopardy same-elements test applies)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (same-elements test for same offense)
- Littrell v. State, 271 S.W.3d 273 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (stand-alone predicate offense can be lesser-included of felony murder as pled)
- Gardner v. State, 306 S.W.3d 274 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (unit of prosecution for capital murder under §19.03(a)(2))
- Shelby v. State, 448 S.W.3d 431 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (unit of prosecution for assaultive offenses is each victim)
- Jackson v. State, 992 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (death is a form of serious bodily injury)