Corey Jules Teamer v. State
429 S.W.3d 164
Tex. App.2014Background
- Corey Teamer was charged with misdemeanor criminal trespass after mall security (Short) told him to leave and a deputy warned he would be arrested if he did not; Teamer remained and was arrested.
- The criminal information alleged in conjunctive language that Teamer “enter and remain” on another’s property without effective consent after notice to depart.
- The jury charge’s abstract paragraph used disjunctive language (“enter or remain”) but the application paragraph erroneously used conjunctive language (“enter and remain”).
- After deliberations began, the trial court sua sponte amended the application paragraph to change some “and”s to “or”s, informing the jury of the correction and initialing the change; defense counsel was offered unlimited time to reargue and did further argue.
- The jury convicted Teamer; on appeal he challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence under the hypothetically correct jury charge given the conjunctive allegations and (2) the propriety/harm of the court’s post-deliberation amendment and whether it denied him closing argument or counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence under hypothetically correct charge when indictment conjunctively pleads alternative statutory methods | State: sufficiency is measured by a hypothetically correct charge that need only require proof of one alleged statutory alternative | Teamer: conjunctive pleading required proof of every alleged alternative (e.g., both entering and remaining; both lack of consent for entry and for remaining) | Court: when statute provides alternative methods and the charging instrument pleads multiple alternatives, the State must prove only one alleged alternative beyond a reasonable doubt; evidence that Teamer remained after notice was sufficient |
| Trial court amended jury charge after deliberations began (Art. 36.16) | State: court may correct an erroneous charge to make abstract and application consistent; such correction was permissible and cured confusion | Teamer: amendment after deliberations violated Art. 36.16 and warranted mistrial because it changed the law and impaired closing argument | Court: correction of an obvious charge error was permissible; defense was offered extra argument time; no reversible error or egregious harm |
| Whether amendment denied due process or constructive denial of counsel/closing argument | State: defendant had opportunity to reargue; amendment reconciled a charge inconsistency and did not force inconsistent argument | Teamer: amendment deprived him of meaningful closing and effective assistance because counsel relied on original wording | Court: amendment did not force inconsistent advocacy; majority of first closing remained valid for corrected charge; no due process or counsel violation |
| Material variance between pleading and proof (narrowing to specific statutory alternative) | State: proof of any alleged statutory alternative suffices if charged; no material variance where proof matches at least one pleaded alternative | Teamer: pleading conjunctively created a variance if State proved only one alternative | Court: no material variance because State proved at least one of the pleaded alternatives; sufficiency measured against pleaded alternatives proven in disjunctive |
Key Cases Cited
- Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (defines hypothetically correct jury charge and relation to indictment)
- Cada v. State, 334 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (sufficiency measured by the specific statutory alternative pleaded when a single alternative is alleged)
- Geick v. State, 349 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (State not required to plead one specific means; if it pleads some alternatives it must prove one of them)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (hypothetically correct charge should not increase State’s burden or restrict theories)
- Kitchens v. State, 823 S.W.2d 256 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (indictment may allege differing methods conjunctively while charge may be disjunctive)
- Johnson v. State, 364 S.W.3d 292 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (variance is proving an unpled statutory method)
- Vega v. State, 394 S.W.3d 514 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (trial judge responsible for accuracy of jury charge)