Darril Hagger Karl, Jr. v. State
02-16-00001-CR
Tex. App.Sep 29, 2016Background
- In December 2014 police attempted to arrest a suspect; appellant Darril Karl was driving a truck that contained that suspect during the incident.
- Officers, including Ernesto Tamayo, followed Karl’s truck; Karl accelerated, drove erratically (jerking side to side), braked hard, crossed a median, and clipped Tamayo’s patrol car.
- Karl later rammed the side of Tamayo’s car, deploying all airbags, disabling the car, and causing Tamayo pain in his arm, shoulder, and face; Karl’s truck then crashed into a brick wall.
- A grand jury indicted Karl for aggravated assault on a public servant (alleging he struck Officer Tamayo with his vehicle and used a deadly weapon) and for evading arrest; prior felony enhancements were alleged.
- A jury convicted Karl of both charges; the trial court imposed concurrent 35-year sentences and entered affirmative deadly-weapon findings.
- Karl appealed, arguing (1–2) a variance between the indictment (alleging he struck Tamayo personally) and proof (showing he struck Tamayo’s vehicle), and (3) insufficient proof that the truck was a deadly weapon by use or intended use.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Karl) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — variance between indictment and proof for aggravated assault | The indictment need not allege the manner/means as an essential element; proof that bodily injury resulted from defendant’s conduct suffices | The State failed to prove the specific allegation that Karl’s truck struck Officer Tamayo personally rather than only striking Tamayo’s car | Variance immaterial; manner/means are not essential elements and may be disregarded in the hypothetically correct charge; conviction upheld |
| Directed verdict / sufficiency challenge | Evidence viewed in light most favorable to verdict shows elements of aggravated assault proven beyond a reasonable doubt | Requested directed verdict on variance theory (insufficient evidence) | Viewing evidence under Jackson, a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; directed-verdict denial proper |
| Deadly-weapon finding — vehicle qualified as deadly weapon by use or intended use | Karl’s driving (speeding, jerking, braking, ramming) made the truck capable of causing death/serious injury; specific intent not required | Karl contends the collision was accidental and thus truck was not a deadly weapon by his use/intended use | Evidence (erratic driving, deliberate ramming, disabling patrol car, heavy property damage) supports that the truck was a deadly weapon by use/intended use; finding upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (established standard for sufficiency review under due process)
- Johnson v. State, 364 S.W.3d 292 (explains that manner/means allegations may be disregarded in hypothetically correct charge)
- Thomas v. State, 444 S.W.3d 4 (compares elements to evidence under Jackson and treats manner/means as nonessential for assault)
- Cates v. State, 102 S.W.3d 735 (motor vehicle can be a deadly weapon if driven so as to endanger lives)
- Brister v. State, 449 S.W.3d 490 (automobile not deadly per se but may become one by manner of use)
- Drichas v. State, 175 S.W.3d 795 (truck qualified as deadly weapon where defendant’s driving endangered officer)
- Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (immaterial variances may be disregarded in hypothetically correct charge)